ΚΣ 
ΡΟΝ 
or te - 


aan vena σεν 


Leesan 
.--οο-ατοσς τασιν σα 


ΩΣ 


spe esol a - τ τ 
EN peed eT OS OCR ς. 
ammeter Tae - 


Sao bnew hem 


αὐ ΠΕ ΠΉΒῈ : 
STEN 


ΠΕ 


cartes 


iH 
14 


- Sener ee RR TTT 


THAT 
σα ὙΠ ΠΕ ἘΠ πλεδττ  ἀξθεε ει 


Ξ τ: -:Φ--εν.-...-ς- - 

ee τπιυυνν.».»- “πη κοιπσσεσισασν rr ret nr nner 

“ 322... Ὁ“π πῆ 2’ που πποο SSN eee 

To. ΞΞ:βΔορ ““-ῆπισ τε aoe AS αι. τ τ. ονανο αινευ κῦμα 

ΣΦ: occ τ ..5..σὅὙ55 “πόαν Foe nr rr rrr nan 

Ξ 33-.:-..--.-....--.ττἷὲ ποσσσσσσα στοσολαστστσυσοσυσ-αωνοσνοηννννστο 
ΞξΞΕΒ....᾽.Ἤ.---“- re rr re 

-- ΞΞΞ.-.-Φος..-...ὕ... πο στο στον -ατοτο-οκπουσορσυαν ὐὀονοοονν».». 

Ter 12Ξ.Ξ.....ὕὙὙπέρπρσὸ Sr arr 

See cr cnenn tater nenersrnn ate REDS eaecnsedenaeae 0m 

Se, ee emevnoren ene nenerne nn nn. 
Φ ΦὩΟΣΣ',, τ τ, στ armor ΣΞΣΞ.Ξ-.:------Ξ-...- τ ΠῚ κατ 
ΞΦ-:Ξ.-Ξ.,... ..-σὉ--- Se rrr ee 
Th 13.-.....--.“ὴῖξς 

Toone ore - 
ΖΦ: Ξ3ΞΞ2“-.. ττ-τσσςΣ. 

ee 33ΞΞΞ....-. .--. τς 


ΠΡ Π ΠΡ ΠΗ ΠΉΠΠΡΠΕΗΙ 
ΠῚ 


PRU RRRRRA SRE SEALS SERS EEE RES: 


- 
= 
= -_ 
= = 
oo =) ~~; 
<n = Ξ 
re 3 π0.....ὕ0.0ὕ(ΚἍ0Κ(Κ5.....ὅ.Σ πον 
SS) ρον ποτ συοιοισισσασσ., «ο΄ - 
See «-- = 
= enero: ον = 
πο eens see = 
CS Seen «ον — 
- ς Sere «ο΄ = 
eS Σ25.:--.-:....ὕ.....ψ...ὅ.--- =! 
SO: «πον -- 
τ π ::32Ξ3:Ξ:::-5..-..-.Ὄ.ψ.ὕὕ.0.. ττ' ~ 
TT Da reecomes τας = 
Ss «οο- _: 
WSS nee: ποι - 
ἐπ ee. Tees meet — — 
mle τρῶς «Ὁ ee me ee = 
ao ee eee segs eens PR -ἱννΣ = 
aap area ets pr nn -- 
SD ewe a ewe ee = 
SO eh, Ste Loe sve 
= 2 Stole tee wate! -Ὁ -_——= - 
— --.- See me arene ence mem ere — A 8 a “Ὁ «- = 
SS Serer ees, ὀ «ος = 
ED ee tte ———=— 
oS Sen Ὁ =——- aw 
= I ν ee — 
Deen σ΄ cS 
ee ee enema SO oo 
μας SS terry = 52:.::::--:.:-:-.-:53:---- τς 
— cone τ δ συ eewrek τὸ -π.-:--------.-.Ἅ.--α 
“πο τς... newness π “Στ ---- -:-------- 
“- ΞΟ a a 
π΄ το Ξ Sa =a 
— os = “::::-:--:Ξ:::..:.-0:.--:.-.ὅ.«--ς 
Se aaenn a arr n τ το τ... «οσττανανιαναι ar — --ὕ 
SL Soo ere ren ee 
ee ee ee ee ς΄ στ υσοσανσοονς 
πε Το νυ τς ent ced Basle ᾿ϑρακνινσν τα te ee Tver on eee me ππ a pwaes 
στο jaasmpasemesenskiseasciaswires wisleriere eee το ςς πστοσς 
wo ΡΥ TRS as nent ATT 
ee το ----- -- -ο-ςσττσστ στ —— 
na err ne ee ποτ aa 
a πε ττοτ--ο--------- οτος τ τ᾿ SS 
rs ee 
——————— eee 


Meri ee sig REET sisstent ΕΝ 


THE 


Pee eee YE AK RS 


or 


Crea ro PEAWTT Y- 


By E DE PRESSENSE, DD, 


AUTHOR OF ‘‘ JESUS CHRIST: HIS TIMES, LIFE, AND WORK.”’ 
TRANSLATED BY ANNIE HARWOOD. 


ΕΠ AOS Oa OO. RA: 


NEW YORK: 


CHARLES SC RLBEN ER .-&-; C-0., 
654 BROAD WAY. 
1870. 


Oy ΤΌ ἃ 


ΓΙ =, 4 
a) 


t 
ξ 


oe 


τε 


᾿ 


4 
ds 


We Ott 


- «8.4.5 


ἐπ τ νὴ 


F all the topics of the day, none is of graver im- 

portance than the early history of Christianity, 
and the foundation of the Church. Every thing 
points inquiry in this direction. A bold criticism 
claims the right to snatch from our hands the docu- 
ments of this great history, and to scatter them in 
fragments to the winds. It is not enough for us to 
take refuge in our faith as in an inviolable sanctuary ; 
we must establish that faith on solid ground, and 
produce its original titles. Our part is not to linger 
on the shore, lamenting the constraint which keeps us 
there, but rather to abjure the false dominion of a 
faith imposed by authority, to cross the stormy sea, 
and plant our feet in the enemy’s country, on the 
much-cultivated soil of contemporary criticism. The 
fact is not to be disguised that science, hostile to 
Christianity, has long ago left the lonely height from 
which it was once wont to bend a pitying eye upon 
the ignorant masses. No lips take up in our day the 
cry, “ Odi profanum vulgus ;” every one feels that 
such a motto would be the confession of weakness. 
The law of most democratic reform has finally asserted 
itself in the world of thought ; we are governed by 


4 PREFACE TO ENGLISH EDITION. 


the universal suffrage of minds. Therefore science 
has assumed, in its hostility to Christianity, a popular 
form. It has not contented itself with the light, 
quivering arrows, as piercing as they were brilliant, 
discharged in such rapid flight by the great satirist 
of the eighteenth century. It has forged other 
weapons; it has transfused into the vulgar tongue 
the results of criticism; it has coined a currency, 
which circulates from hand to hand, out of those 
heavy ingots which seemed immovable in their pon- 
derosity. While in Germany, Strauss’s “Leben Jesu” 
has been read and pondered in cottages and work- 
shops, men in France, unaware of the very existence 
of that famous book, have been initiated into its con- 
clusions. M. Renan’s “Vie de Jéesus’’—circulated 
by thousands of copies—has given a new popularity 
to the results of negative criticism, by casting them 
into a poetic mold. Thus, from day to day, a form 
of skepticism is being developed which is so much 
the more dangerous because it conceives itself better 
informed. It is present in the very air we breathe ; 
it finds its way into the lightest publications ; the 
novel and the journal vie with each other in its dif- 
fusion ; short review articles, skilled in giving grace 
and piquancy to erudition, furnish it with arguments 
which appear weighty, because they are so in com- 
parison with the pleasantries of Voltaire. Such a 
condition of things is critical, and calls for grave and 
special consideration. If those who are convinced 
of the divinity of Christianity slumber on in false and 
fatal security, they must be prepared to pay dearly 


PREFACE ΤΟΣ “ENGLISH: EDITION. 5 


for their slothfulness ; and the Church and mankind— 
which have need of each other—will pay dearly for it 
also. The voice of skepticism will alone be heard, 
and the sweeping assertions of an unbelief—often 
more credulous than bigotry—will pass for axioms. 

There can be no doubt of the ignorance which 
extensively prevails, even among the highly cultivated, 
as to the nature and origin of Christianity. This is 
the newest of themes, because that which has fallen 
into deepest oblivion. We are persuaded that the 
best method of defense against the shallow skepticism 
which assails us, and which dismisses, with a scornful 
smile, documents, the titles of which it has never 
examined, is to retrace the history of primitive Chris- 
tianity, employing all the materials accumulated by 
the Christian science of our day ; for it must be well 
understood among us that there is in truth sucha 
thing as Christian science in the nineteenth century. 
Those who have taken upon themselves, during the 
last few years, to initiate other countries into the sci- 
entific movement of Germany, have only brought into 

view one side. The other side deserves a like pub- 
— licity ; and as this very subject of the early history 
of Christianity has been treated with a marked pre- 
dilection by the greatest Christian divines of our age, 
we are bound, in approaching it, to remember their 
labors, and profit by all the treasures their patient 
researches have amassed. 

This subject commends itself to us also from 
another point of view. We are the witnesses of an 
unparalleled triumph of ecclesiastical authority, which 


6 PREFACE TO ENGLISH EDITION. 


takes advantage of all the ground left at its disposal 
by the general indifference. Our century has seen 
that which would not have been endured by any 
previous age. It has received the gift—fatal or 
precious—of pushing every principle to its ultimate 
issues. The Roman—I will not say the Catholic— 
principle achieved its most signal victory when a new 
dogma was proclaimed bya single man. The intoxi- 
cation of success has closed the ears of the Ultra- 
montane party against the protestations—dull as 
yet—of the Christian conscience in the bosom of that 
very Church, whose rights have thus unscrupulously 
been trodden under foot. The approaching Council, 
if we may judge by the letters of convocation, is about 
to formulate as dogmas the most senseless preten- 
sions of Ultramontanism—the infallibility of the 
Pope, the temporal power, and the negation of lib- 
erty of conscience. Discussion would be perfectly 
useless with the heads of this party, who will see 
nothing, hear nothing, that differs from their own 
opinion. “ Let the dead bury their dead,” and let us 
not concern ourselves with them, except when they 
seek to bury us also in the same tomb. But it would 
be a serious mistake to suppose that this intolerant 
faction has succeeded in overcoming all resistance. 
A formidable crisis has commenced in the history of 
Catholicism, and nothing will check it. Grave ques- 
tions are proposed ; it must be ascertained whence 
the Papacy has derived this vast authority which it 
has so boldly assumed. Let us produce its titles. 
It is cited before the bar of history. Now or never 


PREFACE TO ENGLISH EDITION. 7 


is the time to listen to that inflexible judge, whose 
sentence, thanks to the discovery of numerous docu- 
ments, we can hear for ourselves. It is clear what 
interest must attach under these circumstances to an 
investigation of the history of primitive Christianity. 

Nor has the subject a lower claim on Protestants. 
Before them also there are serious questions for solu- 
tion, both in the domain of theology and in that of 
the Church. There is not a single religious party 
which does not feel the need either of confirmation 
or of transformation. All the Churches, born of the 
great movement of the sixteenth century, are passing 
through a time of crisis. They are all asking them- 
selves, though from various stand-points, whether 
the Reformation does not need to be continued and 
developed. Aspiration toward the Church of the 
future is becoming more general, more ardent. But 
for all who admit the divine origin of Christianity, the 
Church of the future has its type and ideal in that 
great past, which goes back not three, but eighteen 
centuries. To cultivate a growing knowledge of this, 
in order to attain a growing conformity to it, is the 
task of the Church of to-day. This is the path in which 
it will find liberty and holiness—those two attributes 
so closely linked together, and so necessary to enable 
the Church to rise to the height of its true vocation. 
In the same direction it must move, in order to make 
that advance in its theology which prudence and ne- 
cessity alike dictate, and which will consist only in 
an ever-deepening appropriation of apostolic doctrine. 
Thus by a concurrence of circumstances, which re- 


8 PREFACE TO ENGLISH EDITION. 


veal the manifest will of God, the attention of our 
age is directed to the question of the origin of 
Christianity. 

This great subject we have attempted to treat in the 
present work, going back always for our materials to 
original documents. It is indeed an enviable task to 
take up the history of the early ages of Christianity, 
thanks to the abundant sources of information now 
opened, and to the invaluable discoveries of manu- 
scripts made during the past few years. 

It is our aim to present as full a picture as possible 
of this period, commencing with the apostolic age, 
which is so little understood, either from religious in- 
difference or because of the unintelligent veneration 
which surrounds it with a legendary glory, behind 
which its types lose all distinctness and originality. 
St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. John appear too often like 
those fabulous heroes placed by tradition on the 
threshold of the historic age, after whose era history, 
properly so called, begins. We feel the necessity of 
reconquering, as part of the domain of history, this 
primitive age of the Church. It will thus regain 
color and life. 

It is not possible in this day, and in view of the 
recent attacks of criticism, to neglect the study of the 
first century, and to proceed at once to that of the 
second and third. Such a course would leave un- 
touched delicate problems which demand a solution. 
We have placed in notes all that relates to the dis- 
cussion of documents, without which no serious his- 
tory of the Church would be possible. We have 


PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. 9 


endeavored to depict, in its true colors, the great con- 
flict of Christianity with the society of the old world, 
which. assailed it—without by persecution, within by 
heresy ; and which, though vanquished so signally, 
avenged itself in a manner by the leaven of error 
which it left within the bosom of the Church. To 
follow closely this triumph and this inner transfor- 
mation—to watch all the shifting scenes of the drama, 
miake the personages live again and speak their own 
words—to let constant streams from the original 
sources flow throughout the whole course of the nar- 
rative, so that all religious parties may find exact in- 
formation in our book, even though they differ from 
our conclusions—such has been our aim. It will be 
much to have contributed any thing, by earnest effort, 
toward such an end. We confine ourselves in this 
work to the first three centuries of the Church, because 
the period which precedes the great Councils has a 
peculiar interest. The Church of this early period 
has not yet bowed under the yoke of a mechanical 
and external unity. Its various sections have each 
a distinct physiognomy, and we can speak of the 
Church of the East and the Church of the West ; in 
short, we are upon the fruitful soil of freedom. We 
may add that this period is also the least known, be- 
cause the official documents are few. In it all the 
elements of Christian greatness are manifest ; in it 
are also present all the germs of error and enslave- 
ment which the following age will develop. 

Interest in the glorious past of the Church is re- 
viving in our day on every hand. Even in a literary 


ΙΟ PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. 


point of view, there are few themes more fertile and 
more attractive. For ourselves, while we do not 
overlook this aspect of our subject, our great desire 
is to bring once more into the full light of day those 
immortal truths of Christianity, of which our age, 
even while it repudiates them, feels such a mighty 
need. We have observed singular analogies between 
this our generation and that Roman society which 
concealed so much corruption under a glittering gloss, 
and so many aspirations after the future under the 
mask of an ill-assured incredulity. Our faith in the 
divinity of Christianity is deep and absolute ; it has 
inspired this book ; it has never, however, laid any 
fetters on our freedom of examination. We believe 
because we have examined ; and we have been care- 
ful, in our historical criticism, to set aside all precon- 
ceived ideas. We have endeavored to recognize 
always the sovereign authority of history—that is to 
say, of facts accepted as we find them before they 
have undergone any transformation from the spirit 
of system. We have faithfully stated the result of 
our researches on all points, ever remembering that 
our duty here on earth is not to take the mean of 
opinions received in one quarter or another, but to 
speak out all the truth as it appears to us. We may 
say, further, that we have not brought the paltry pre- 
possessions of sectarians into the history of the an- 
cient Church. We have pointed out its errors and 
blemishes, while we have done justice to its pure and 
primal glory; nor have we turned aside from the 
Church of the Fathers, to seek in some inaccessible 


PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. TI 


hiding-place an unbroken tradition of spotless ortho- 
doxy. In every period of its history—the first alone 
excepted—we find the visible Church in all its man- 
ifestations far below its own ideal. And yet, while 
we hold fast out preferences, we rejoice to repeat the 
ancient adage, Udz Christus, 1b1 Ecclesia. This is 
no reason, however, why the Church should not 
aspire to rise higher and higher toward its ideal ; to 
realize that is ever increasingly its true idea. May 
it succeed in our day less imperfectly than in the 
past, and, casting aside all human trammels, and the 
darkness which clings around them, become con- 
formed, both in doctrine and organization, to the 
very apostolic type! Most needful is such prepara- 
tion for the impending conflict. Our highest wish 
will be fulfilled, if we may contribute in some measure 
to lead the Church back to its origin, as to the fount- 
ain of its life. 

The reproduction in English of this “ History of 
the Early Years of Christianity” is not a mere trans- 
lation of the French edition, but the presentation of 
that work in a considerably altered form. We have, 
in the first place, dispensed with the long introduc- 
tion treating of the history of religions prior to Chris- 
tianity, partly because this has already appeared sep- 
arately in England, and partly because a very full 
résumé is given of it in our book on “The Life, 
Work, and Times of Jesus Christ,’ to which the 
present work may be regarded as a sequel. We 
have, further, endeavored to bring the English edi- 
tion into a smaller compass than the French, without 


12 PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION. 


curtailing it in any necessary or important branch. 
By this means we have condensed into one volume 
the whole history of the apostolic age. The next 
volume will comprise all the great conflict of the 
Church with paganism, and will be entitled “ The 
Martyrs and Confessors.” We hope to give, in a 
concluding volume, the entire history of Christian 
thought and doctrine, treating of all that bears upon 
theological and ecclesiastical questions during the 
same period. 

The English work will thus have its own special 
-character, and will be more concise than the French. 
By removing some branches from this rather over- 
grown forest, we hope to let in more light. 


EDMOND DE PRESSENSE. 
PARIS, October 27, 1868. 


NOTE BY THE AMERICAN PUBLISHERS.—By the above statement 
it will appear that our author’s plan was to embrace the entire subject 
in three volumes. Upon further reflection, however, he has concluded 
that both the requisite fullness of treatment and the proper division 
of the matter demanded rouR VoLUMEs ; and the publishers, both 
English and American, concur in his proposal. The topics of the 
FOUR VOLUMES will, therefore, be as follows: I. AposToLic ERA. 
II. MaRTyRs AND ApoLocists. III. ΠΟΟΤΕΙΝῈ AND HERESIES. 
IV. THE CHuRCH Worsuip AND CHRISTIAN Lire. The author’s 
expectation is, that the French volume will be ready for the English 


translation in November, which will be forthwith followed by its issue 
from our press, 


8 


INTRODUCTION 
TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


HE name of DE PRESSENS®, the eminent leader of evangelical 
1 Protestantism in France, is favorably known in England and 
America by his published works, especially his ** Life of Christ,”’ 
and his ** Religion and the Reign of Terror.” By his clear maintenance 
of Christian truth, his ripe scholarship, his fresh and pictorial style, 
and the tone of modern liberality that pervades his firm conservatism 
in behalf of fundamental verities, he has placed himself in the highest 
rank of modern defenders of the primitive Christian faith. Had he, 
like Renan, the advantage of the zest of opposition to ancient opin- 
ions, and of a factitious originality, arising from an unrestrained lib- 
erty of shaping, coloring, and grouping the facts and characters of 
history to his own fancy, Pressensé could bring to the work an insight 
not less clear, and a style not less vivid. But he holds himself sol- 
emnly bound to TRUTH alone, whether that truth be marvelous and 
picturesque, or commonplace and brown. Yet truth, like wisdom, is 
justified of her children. She is mfmitely valuable for her own sake ; 
she is often capable of an ever-varying freshness as viewed by succes- 
sive ages ; and the truths which Pressensé unfolds must forever possess 
for the earnest spirit an unsurpassable imterest and an eternal youth. 
While maintaining evangelical truth in its true spirit, Pressensé, 
with a genuine Protestant freedom, expresses individual views from 
which many devout Christians dissent, and m regard to which the pub- 
lishers are not to be held as expressing opinions. He adopts, for in- 
stance the view of Van Oosterzee and others m regard to the divine 
nature of Christ, modifies the Anselmian theory of the atonement, 
and strenuously maintains immersion to be the sole mode of New 


Testament baptism. Some of the views furnish grounds even for 


14. INTRODUCTION TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. 


denominational @fferences ; but Pressensé speaks from that elevated 
stand-point which may induce even those who differ from him to give 
him a liberal hearing. 

We may add, that this is the only edition issued from the press in 
this country, and that it is printed by agreement with an English 
publishing house, under the proper arrangements with the author 
and translator. 


; Gre R 


Hist Centuryn—Rooh Fist. 


FIRST PERIOD OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE, FROM PEN 


gt a es ; é 
ψν = ν᾿ ᾿ ΣΝ ἃ ὃ 


pS ae 


As 


TE- 


COST TO THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM.—A.D. 30-50. 


CHAPTER. £ 
COMMENCEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Character of the Church—Special character of the Apostolic 
CHUGH LCT IONS: Of, δ HESTGEY Se cia Oda aint 8 ois a swe 8 5! 0 a Page 

§ I. Actual foundation of the Church on the Day of Pente- 
cost—Its First Mission and First Persecution—Miracle of Pente- 
cost—-Character and Office of St. Peter—His reputed Primacy— 
Success of the First Mission—First Persecution.... .......... 

§ II. The Teaching and First Constitution of the Church at 
Jerusalem—Attacks made upon the young Church—First apology 
of Christianity—the Miracles—Scriptural evidence—Appeal to 
the conscience—Doctrine of the Primitive Church—Ecclesiastical 
organization—Nature of the Apostolate—Conditions of admission 
into the Church—Worship of the Primitive Church—General 
PHPACUCE Ole EMS PCN LOG = fs, exc. sfaia'a oha'm A Pa Ghare τον «cde cyecarenatete s 


CHAPTER “TT, 


FIRST INTERNAL CONFLICT, AND FIRST EXTENSION OF THE 
CHURCH BEYOND JERUSALEM. 


§ I. The Seven Deacons of the Church at Jerusalem—Stephen 
—First Debate in the Church—The Primitive Diaconate— 
Stephen the precursor of St. Paul—Accusation brought against 
Stephen—His speech—His martyrdom—Saul of Tarsus, the wit- 
ESC Bee chs CONC Tor ΠΣ υς, τον Ἂς a ey ne eee eee 

§ II. The Dispersion of the Christians—The Gospel in Sama- 
ria—Simon Magus—Philip and the Eunuch—Philip at Samaria 


23 


28 


42 


54 


ἐὺ 


16 CONTENTS. 


—Hatred of the Mews to the Samaritans—Dositheus—Simon 
Magus—His influence in Samaria—His doctrine, according to 
the ‘‘ Philosophoumena”’—Effect of Philip’s preaching—The 
Apostles at Samaria—Simon desires to purchase the Holy Ghost 
—Consequences of the Mission in Samaria—Conversion of the 
Ethiopian Eunuch.......... Ἐπ eres tera rts ate Page 

§ III. Foundation of the Church at Antioch, and Conversion 
of the Centurion Cornelius—The Church of Antioch founded by 
simple Evangelists—Peter and Cornelius. ...............-...- 

§ IV. The Church at Jerusalem at the time of the First Mis- 
sion beyond Judzea—The Christians at Jerusalem still Judaizing 
—Discussion between them and Peter—Creation of the office of 
Elders—The Elders of the Synagogue—Their equality—The 
Elders of the Church are also equal among themselves—Martyr- 
dom of James, the son of Zebedee—Imprisonment of Peter— 
Death of Herod—Part taken by James, the Lord’s brother—Im- 
portance of sthe:Church.at\Ferusalems::,’ - ἘΣ ici See ee 


CHAPTER, Et. 
CONVERSION OF PAUL. HIS FIRST MISSION. 


§ I. Saul of Tarsus—His Preparation and Conversion—His 
Preparation—Saul at Tarsus—He goes to Jerusalem—lIs a disci- 
ple of Gamaliel—His sincerity—His zeal for the Law—His moral 
malady—His contact with Stephen—Saul the persecutor—Jour- 
ney to Damascus—He is overthrown by the way—The three days 
at Damascus—Saul in Arabia—Return to Jerusalem—Saul at 
Antioch | Character of the Apostolate of St. Paul............. 

§ 11. St. Paul’s first Journey—His first Companions—Con- 
version of Sergius Paulus—Paul at Antioch in Pisidia—His 
Sermon—Obduracy of the Jews—Paul and Barnabas at Lystra 
—Paul 1s\stoned—Return of Paul... 2.2... (sev Nee 


CHAPTER -f¥. 


THE TWO CONFERENCES AT JERUSALEM, AND THE DISPUTE AF 
ANTIOCH. 


§ I. The Two Conferences—Origin of Polemics—Difficulties 
in the Church at Antioch—The Private Conference—The Public 


75 


82 


95 


ετό 


Conference—Speech of Peter—Speech of Paul—Speech of James — 


—Decisions of the Conference—It concludes with a Compromise. 
§ Il. Dispute at Antioch 


P25 
138 


CONTENTS. 17 


Hirst Century—Pook Second, 


SECOND PERIOD OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE.—THE APOS- 
TOLIC CHURCH UP TO THE DEATH OF ST. PAUL, 
FROM A.D. 50 TO 65. 


CHAP TER * 1, 
MISSIONS GF THE CHURCH UP TO THE CAPTIVITY OF ST. PAUL. 


§ I. Second Missionary Journey of St. Paul—Paul the type 
of the Missionary—He separates from Barnabas and takes Tim- 
othy—Epaphras founds the Church at Ephesus—The Gospel car- 
ried to the Galatians—He passes from the East to the West— 
Foundation of the Philippian Church—Paul and Silas in Prison— 
— Conversion of the Jailer—Paul at Thessalonica—Success and 
Persecutions—Paul at Athens—The Altar of the Unknown God 
—Discourse of the Apostle on the Areopagus—Paul at Corinth 
—cCorruption of that City—A Church founded there—Paul there 
writes the Two Epistles to the Thessalonians—His vow-—He 
goes to Ephesus—Conversion of Apollos.............006. Page 143 

§ II. Third Missionary Journey of St. Paul—Sojourn of Paul 
at Ephesus, then the focus of the Religions of the East—He there 
writes the Epistle to the Galatians—There he meets with Disci- 
ples of John the Baptist, and Jewish exorcists—Effects of his 
preaching— Voyage of Paul to Crete and Corinth—The Epistle 
to Titus, and the first Epistle to Timothy, written during this 
journey—Return to Ephesus—First Epistle to the Corinthians— 
Tumult raised against Paul—Second Journey into Macedonia 
—Second Epistle to the Corinthians—Presentiments of Captivity 
and Death—Return Journey to Jerusalem—Paul at Troas—His 
farewell at Miletus to the Elders from Ephesus—Paul at Caesarea 
Prophecy of Agabus—Arrival at Jerusalem—Paul is arrested in 
the Temple—His Speech and Imprisonment............eseee. 169 


CHAPTER “II. 


MISSIONS AND PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHURCH FROM THE CAP- 
TIVITY OF ST. PAUL TO HIS DEATH AND THAT OF ST. PETER. 


I. Various phases of the Captivity of Paul—Paul before the 
Sanhedrim—He is transferred to Casarea+He appears before 
Felix—-Mildness of his Captivity—He writes the Epistles to the 
Ephesians, Colossians, and to Philemon—Festus takes the place of 


ars to the Emperor—He appears before Festus 
2 


18 CONTENTS. 


and Agrippa—Arrival of Paul at Rome—He enjoys a measure of 
freedom—He preaches the Gospel to the Jews, and to his Jailers 
—He writes the Epistle to the Philippians—He appears before 
Nero—The Second Epistle to Timothy is Paul’s Testament— 
General character of the Apostle’s Missions to the Gentiles. Page 

§ II. Missions of the other Apostles during this period— 
James continues to reside at Jerusalem—Jude in Phrygia—Mis- 
sions of Andrew, Philip, Matthew, Bartholomew, Matthias, Si- 
mon, Zelotes, Judas Thaddeus, and Thomas—Peter at Babylon— 
His letter to the Christians in Asia Minor—He goes to Rome— 
Was never a Bishop—Mark founds the Church of Alexandria... 

III. Method of Primitive Evangelization—Origin of the First 
Three Gospels—The Primitive Church not concerned with the 
writing of Books—The Living Word preferred to the Written— 
No Primitive Official Gospel—The memory of Christ living in the 
Church—The part of Christian experience in memorizing the great 
facts of Salvation— Written records—Apocryphal and Synoptical 
Gospels—Superiority of the latter—Their origin—They bear the 
seal of Inspiration—Living character of this Inspiration...... 

§ IV. The First Roman Persecution of Christianity—Perse- 
cution in Judzea—Death of James, the brother of the Lord—The 
Religious Constitution of Society in the Ancient World condu- 
cive to Persecution—Ancient Religions, State Religions—Special 
circumstances which render Persecution inevitable—Foreign Re- 
ligions regarded with suspicion by the Czesars—The Church con- 
founded with the Synagogue—The holiness of Christians hateful 
to the Pagans—Calumnies against Christianity—Rapid growth of 
the Church of Rome—Persecution popular—Part of Nero in this 
Persecution—-Martyrdom of St. Paul and St: Peter—Martyrdom 
of James, the brother’ of the. Lord, at} ]etusalem.?: ττὸὺς- {τε τ 


i CHAPTER III. 


VARIOUS FORMS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE IN THE SECOND PE- 
RIOD OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. 

§ I. Fundamental Unity in Diversity—Refutation of the sys- 
tem of Baur—Unity prevails over Diversity—Three great types 
Of. doctwine’ appear Ataris Pernod.) 3 2 Stie ames es He vy he cee 

δ᾽ II. Doctrine of -James—His characteristic idea is the per- 
manence of moral obligation under the new coyenant—Faith 
jomed with Works—Love is pre-eminently ¢#e Work—The na- 
ture of Pardon clearly expressed—The Gospel History constantly 
presupposed—M oral importance of the Epistle of James...... 


189 


204 


216 


220 


» >, ΖΑ͂ 


CONTENTS. 


§ III. Doctrinal Type of Peter—The First Two Gospels— 
The Gospel is to Peter, first of all, the fulfillment of Prophecy— 
Comforting view opened of the abode of the Dead—The Gospel of 
Mark recalls the type of Peter—That of Matthew represents the 
GOEETING Gr sbeter ate | AMS.) bee σοι νὴ δος δ oie so τος Page 

§ IV. Doctrine of St. Paul—Polemical character of his teach- 
ing—The essential feature of Paul’s doctrine is the agreement of 
the Religious and Moral Elements—The first idea in his Theology 
is the idea of Justice—Justice the principle of all religion—The 
Fall a violation by the Creature of the Laws of Eternal Justice 
—Universality of the Condemnation—Various elements in fallen 
Man—The Body not the principle of Evil—Sin is a Transgres- 
sion—The decree of Salvation a free act of Grace—lIt is not the 
Predestination of Augustine or of Calvin—Chapter ix of the 
Epistle to the Romans—Preparation for Salvation—Preparation 
in Judaism—The Patriarchal age—The Law a Schoolmaster to 
bring to Christ—Preparation in Paganism—Redemption—Nature 
of the Redeemer—Divinity and Subordination of the Son of God 
-—His Humanity—He is the second Adam—Work of the Re- 
deemer—Redemption is primarily an act of Obedience—Obedi- 
ence in Suffering—The Death of Christ is a Free Sacrifice—The 
theory of Anselm is not to be found in St. Paul—Jesus Christ, 
raised from the Dead, sends the Holy Spirit—Appropriation of 
Salvation—Faith, a real Union with Jesus Christ—Justification 
and Sanctification—Close relation between the two—The Church 
—Kingdom of Good opposed to Kingdom of Evil—Future of the 
World and the Church—Judgment, Resurrection—Groaning of 
the Creation after Redemption—Connection of the two Covenants 
—The Law of the Letter and of the Spirit—Apology of St. Paul 
—His doctrine reproduces the Teaching of Jesus Christ ........ 

§ V. God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for all. 

§ VI. The Gospel of Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews— 
The gospel of Luke reproduces the doctrinal type of Paul—The 
same is the case with the Epistle to the Hebrews, which adds the 
allegorical element of the Alexandrine school................ 


CHAPTER. ‘IV. 


THE STATE OF THE CHURCHES DURING THIS PERIOD. FIRST 
SYMPTOMS OF HERESY. 


§ I. Judaizing tendency in the Churches of Palestine, Galatia, 
Macedonia, Achaia, and Italy—MHistory of the Church at Jerusa- 
lem — Judaeo-Christianity is there at first kept within bounds—It 


19 


247 


254 
271 


292 


20 ; SONTENTS. 


becomes more decided after death of James—Melancholy condi- 
tion of the other Churches of Palestine—Judaizing reaction in 
Palestine—False teachers there combat the influence of Paul— 
Church of that Country returns to St. Paul—False Teachers at 
Philippi—Millenarian views at Thessalonica—Church at Rome 
—Converts from Paganism are there the most numerous—Church 
of Corinth—Four Parties—Defeat of Judzo-Christianity ..Page 

δ᾽ II. Dualistic heresies in Crete, Colosse, and Ephesus—Her- 
esy of Simon Magus, according to the ** Philosophoumena”’—Her- 
esies of Colosse, Ephesus, and the Isle of Crete—Ascetic Dualism 
—Abuse of the Scriptures—Medley of Judaism and Orientalism— 
Grievous consequences of these errors on the Christian life...... 


CHAPTER. VY; 
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCHES DURING THIS PERIOD. 


§ I. General Principles of Ecclesiastical Organization—Dis- 
tinction between the Church Visible and the Church Invisible— 
No ‘‘ Mother Church ’’—No Representative Assemblies—No Cen- 
ter of Unity—Unity of Churches entirely Moral—The Church is 
the Company of Christians—Is entered by Individual Adherence. 

δ᾽ II. Gifts and offices—Gift of Tongues—Gifts of Prophecy 
and Healing—Gift of Teaching exercised by all Christians— 
Power of the Keys belongs to them—No Clerical Consecration 
of the Sacraments—Priesthood universal—Identity of Elders and 

3ishops—Only one category of Elders—Ministry of the Word 
not placed by itself—Maintenance of the Elders—The Deacon— 
Deaconesses—All Offices filled by Election—Imposition of Hands 
is not Ordination—Offices are Ministries................0000- 


CHAPTER 2 Vi: 
WORSHIP AND THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 

§ I. Christian Worship during this period— Spirituality of the 
New Worship: no Priesthood; no Temples; no Holy Days— 
Sunday not the Sabbath—Acts of Worship—Teaching—Old Tes- 
tament still the Holy Book—Faithfulness in Teaching required— 
Prayer—Thanksgiving—Song—Sacraments—Baptism linked to 
Faith ; has no connection with Circumcision ; not administered to 
Children—The Communion : Mode of celebration—Ecclesiastical 
Discipline—A postolic Age knew rio other Sacraments than Bap- 
tism and Lord’s Supper—Anointing with Oil—Burial of the Dead 

§ II. Christian Life—Primitive Christianity cannot act directly 
in all the domains which it is to subdue in course of time—No 


299 


317 


331 


338 


361 


CONTENTS. 21 


Opposition between Church and State—The two Institutions unfit 
to be Separated—No Opposition between Christianity and Art— 
Creation of a Ideal by the Gospel—-Characterictics of Individual 
Piety--Manual Labor Ennobled—Asceticism—Christian Family 
—Christianity and Slavery—Latter is morally Abolished—Charity 
Born upon Earth with Christianity—Relation of Christians to the 
World—Power of the Holiness of the First Christians..... Page 381 


Hust Century—PHook Chird. 


PERIOD OF ST. JOHN, OR CLOSE OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. 


CHAPTER 
THE FALL OF JERUSALEM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 


§ I. Destruction of the Holy City—Roman Tyranny in Judzea 
—First Revolt—Commencement of the Siege—Forebodings of 
the Divine Chastisement—The Three Factions—Growing Horror 
of the Siege—Taking of the City—Burning of the Temple...... 399 
§ II. Consequences to the Church of the Destruction of the 
Temple—Enlargement of Prophetic Views—Need of a Fixed Or- 
ganization—No Second Council at Jerusalem—The Synagogue 
formally Excommunicates the Church—Origin of Ebionitism... 406 


CHAPTER: 1H; 
ST. JOHN, THE APOSTLE AND PROPHET. 


§ I. Life of St. John—Tardiness of the Influence of St. John 
explained by the Nature of his Gifts and Mission—Conversion 
and Growth of John—He Ripens in Obscurity—John at Ephesus 
—He writes the Revelation before the Gospel—Fourth Gospel 
and the Epistles of John—Last Years of the Apostle.......... 415 

§ 11. John, the Prophet of the new Covenant—The Revela- 
tion—The same Doctrine in the Gospel and Revelation—General 
Point of View of the Book of Revelation—Future represented 
through the medium of Contemporary History—Plan of the Book 
—Arrangement of the Apocalypse—It proceeds on the same Plan 
as the Prophecy of Jesus Christ, Matt. xxiv-—Prediction of the 
Fall of Rome—Conflict of the Church with Heresy—Fall of Rome 
typifies the End of the World—Nero the Symbol of Antichrist— 
Final Triumph of the Church—The End—Prophecy advances 
ὙΠ PE MERRY τὸ τυ νένότοςς ss Sale winks wo bcos oe wis ον δ τ ΑΝ ae 430 


22 CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER :IiI. 
THE DOCTRINE OF ST. JOHN. 


§ I. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—God is Love—The Son, the 
Eternal object of the Divine Love—Subordination of the Son to 
Poe Father— Phe: Holy Spirit. i... 2.2 « τες seice eee eau Page 

§ II. The Word and the World—Part taken by the Word in 
Creation—Relation between Man and the Word—The Fall—Sin, 
the Violation of Law—The Fall is not Absolute.............. 

§ III. The Word and Redemption—Preparatory Work of 
the Word—The Attraction of the Father—The Incarnation— 
Redeniption—-The-TnvisitblesChrist os susie seve «wee ey este wees 

§ IV. The Word in the Christian and in the Church until the 
end of time—Appropriation of Salvation—Grace--Faith : justi- 
fying and sanctifying—The Future of the Church.............. 


CHAPTER TV. 
THE CHURCHES IN THE TIME OF ST. JOHN. 


§ I. External Condition—Persecution under Domitian...... 
§ II. Internal Condition of the Churches—Heresies—Church 
Organization—State of the Churches—Diminution of Piety— 
Heresy—Commencement of Docetism—The Nicolaitans—Ce- 
rinthus—Ecclesiastical Organization—John not the Founder of 


443 


447 


450 


458 


464 


Episcopacy— Worship—Celebration of the Feasts—The Sabbath © 


—The Passover—End of the Apostolic Age...........000c00. 


Hotes. 


Notes, “Eiterature,of the: Subject’: i0.\.'ch ad eee eee cee 
Note: B.> ‘Phe: Chronolosy ofsthe-Wiets: oh aoe i eee 
Note C. Principal Source of the History of the Primitive Church. 
ΠΥ ΘΟ ΘΙ The, Miracle of Penteeost τυ τ τ ene os 
Noted. “Phe ‘Councilof, Jernsalieni. 3) x) on. το ΡΟΣ 
Note F. The Supposed Second si teas of ΘΟ Pauls ii feats 
Worstall he. Epistle of St, Pauh.... 2. 5 p.a,Meak ik ἀπο cen een ee 
Wore ET.) Phe Epistles of James:and Judes. .0.0% 20. ek ees 


Notew.. ~The Second: Epistleof Peter ois. 2k ae. ie ees 
Note J. The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews....... 
Note K. Diversity of views on Theology of the Apostolic Age. 
Note L. The Authenticity and the Date of the Apocalypse.... 
Note M. The Authenticity of the Fourth Gospel and of the 

Epistles of St.John. ..scivisiesastdssvintas ssc 


484. 
486 
489 
490 


EARLY YEARS 


OF THE 


CHRISTIAN. CHURCH. 


BOOK FIRST. 


THE FIRST PERIOD OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE, FROM 
PENTECOST TO THE COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM, 
A. Ὁ. 30-50. 


CHAPTERS! 


COMMENCEMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. } 


ESUS CHRIST came to restore the kingdom 

of God upon earth. He came not simply to offer 
salvation to every individual man. It was his design 
to found a holy community, from which, as from a 
new humanity reconstituted by him, filled with his 
Spirit and living by his life, the Gospel should go 
forth into all the world. The holy community thus 
founded is the Christian Church. It differs from all 
the religious institutions which preceded it. It is 
not limited, like the Jewish theocracy, to one special 
nation; it is not bounded by the frontiers of any 


* See Note A, at the end of the volume, on the works of reference. 

+ See Note B, on the Chronology of the Acts. 

+ See Note C, on the principal source of the history of the Apos- 
tolic Age. 


24 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


land. It forms the kingdom which is not of this 
world, and which is destined to triumph over all the 
powers of earth leagued against it. Placed beyond 
the external conditions of Judaism, the Church is 
primarily a moral and spiritual fact, the character of 
which is essentially supernatural. /Born of a miracle, 
by a miracle it lives. Founded upon the great mir- 
acle of redemption, it grows and is perpetuated by 
the ever-repeated miracle of conversion. It is en- 
tered, not by the natural way of birth, but by the 
supernatural way of the new birth. / Resting upon 
free convictions, the Church—the holy community 
of souls—wins them one by one, and conquers them 
in a hard struggle with the world and with them- 
selves ; it requires from each one an adherence, which 
implies the sacrifice of the will. It makes the most 
powerful appeal to the individual, just because it ad- 
dresses itself to all the race. The Church, resting 
on no national or theocratic basis, must gather its 
adherents simply by individual conviction, and such 
-a basis alone corresponds with the breadth of Chris- 
tianity, because it alone places the Church beyond 
the narrow bounds of nationalities and of territorial 
circumscription. In truth, setting aside in man the 
contingent of race and distinctions of birth, all that 
remains is the moral personality, the individual soul 
to be brought into direct contact with God. Indi- 
viduality is therefore the widest conceivable basis for 
a religious community. When Jesus Christ sent 
forth to the conquest of the world the few disciples 
whom he had gathered around him, and who formed 
the nucleus of the Church, he by that act abrogated 
the old theocratic distinctions, and implicitly founded 


BOOK 1I.-—-FIRST. CENTURY. 25. 


the new community, in which there is neither Jew 
nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircumcision. 

Strange conquerors, we must own, are these Gali- 
lean fishermen, without repute, without learning, the 
poorest of the poor, sent forth in their simplicity into 
the midst of a state of society in which dazzling 
splendor is combined with a power hitherto irresist- 
ible. Brute force will be let loose upon them, and 
they have neither might nor right to meet force with 
force; their weapons are to be of the Spirit only. 
Reviled and persecuted, they must offer no other re- 
sistance than the fortitude of their patience and the 
vigor of their faith ; for let them at all avenge them- 
selves on their adversaries, and they will do them- 
selves irremediable wrong by dishonoring and striking 
a death-blow to their own principle. They are not 
suffered for one moment to forget that their strength 
comes from that higher and invisible world, of which. 
they are the representatives upon earth, and which is 
at once their fatherland and their goal. 

The Christian Church has a double vocation. It 
is called first to assimilate to itself more and more 
closely the teaching and the life of its divine Founder, 
to be joined to him by tender and sacred bonds, to 
grow in knowledge, in charity, in holiness. It is 
then to carry every-where the light and flame thus 
kindled and fed in the sanctuary of the soul, so that 
it may illuminate and vivify the world. To purify 
itself within, and to extend itself without, such is the 
twofold task of the Church, and the ages are given 
for its fulfillment. 

There is, however, one period of its history which 
claims to be distinguished from the rest—namely, 


26 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


the apostolic age. Its peculiar mission was to pre- 
serve to the world the living memory of Christ. The 
primitive Church is of necessity the medium between 
us and him; through it alone can we know him; it 
is to us as the channel which conveys the water from 
the fountain. It is endowed, therefore, with the 
gifts necessary for the fulfillment of this mission. Of 
these gifts two especially are peculiar to it. It is the 
Church of the apostolate, and the Church of inspira- 
tion. On the one hand, it is the direct witness of 
Christ; on the other, it has received the Spirit of 
God in extraordinary measure, to enable it to lay a 
solid foundation upon which the Church of all ages 
may be built up. Our task is to study closely these 
two great facts of the apostolic age. 

We say at once, that neither by the apostolate nor 
by inspiration was the primitive Church spared the 
salutary labor of the assimilation of the truth. It is 
a grave mistake to suppose that a definite constitu- 
tion was given to the Church from its very com- 
mencement, by decrees promulgated by the Apostles, 
and that it was at once lifted on the wings of inspira- 
tion to the luminous height from which, subsequently, 
the eye of a St. Paul and a St. John surveyed the 
whole extent of the Gospel revelation. Many con- 
flicts, many dissensions, many lessons of experience 
were to precede and to prepare this closing period 
of the apostolic age, which was the result and crown 
of All. 

‘The revelations of the Old and New Testament 
were always given progressively, because it was the 
will of God to establish.a real harmony between the 
truths which he communicated and the soul by which 


BOOK L-——FIRST CENTURY. ἐν 7, 


they were received. \ This inward, penetrating, pro- 
gressive action of the Divine Spirit, reaching its 
ends without doing any violence to human nature, is 
far more beautiful than any sudden and irresistible 
operation. Between the two methods there is all 
the difference between grace and magic. Every one 
who admits that the ideal of the new covenant shines 
forth resplendent in the person of the God-Man, 
must equally admit that the complete blending of the 
human with the divine element is the great consum- 
mation of the Gospel design. This, which is to be 
the aim of every age, finds its first perfect realization 
in the age of the Apostles. Their era, therefore, may 
be regarded as having furnished, as it were, the theme 
of the history of the Church ; for that history is but 
a free and vigorous development of the great results 
gained in the first century. The first subject, then, 
for our consideration, is this normal and ideal union 
of the human and the divine element in the life of 
the primitive Church. 

_ We shall divide its history into three periods, each 
of these designated by the name of the apostle who 
exercised the greatest influence upon it. We have 
thus the period of St. Peter, that of St. Paul, and 
that of St. John. ᾿ 

In the first, the divine element predominates almost 
to the exclusion of the human, which is, in compari- 
son, reduced to passivity. This is the period of the 
purely supernatural; it follows the first outpouring 
of the Holy Spirit, and precedes the great internal 
deliberations in the Church. In the second and 
third, the human element is more apparent, though 
always controlled and purified by the divine: great 


28 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


questions are stated and debated, Church organiza- 
tion begins, doctrine becomes more defined, and if 
miracles are still many, they are less abundant than 
before. The latter fact, so far from implying any 
inferiority in the closing periods of the apostolic age, 
seems to us to mark a real superiority. For in truth, 
when the supernatural element is so infused into 
human nature that it animates it, as the soul the 
body, it may be said that the union between God 
and man is fully realized, and the most glorious re- 
sults of redemption achieved. 


§ I. Actual Foundation of the Church on the Day of 
Pentecost. Its First Mission and First Persecution. 


Fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 
during the celebration at Jerusalem of the Feast of 
Pentecost, which was the feast of the ingathering,* 
the Holy Spirit came down upon the apostles and 
disciples, assembled to the number of a hundred 
and twenty in an upper chamber. Some representa- 
tives of the sacerdotal theory—always disposed to 
confine the Spirit of God to his sanctuaries—have 
maintained that this place, consecrated by so glorious 
an event, formed a part of the large attached build- 
ings of the Temple at Jerusalem.t But this is an 
entirely gratuitous hypothesis, of which the text 
bears no trace. The Holy Spirit breathes where he 
will, and does not suffer himself to be restricted to any 


* Pentecost was spoken of in the time ef Josephus as the feast of 
the great assembly. (‘‘ Ant.,” iii, το, 6.) According to Jewish tradi- 
tion, Pentecost was the anniversary of the promulgation of the Jewish 
law. 

Ὁ Thiersch, ‘‘ Die Kirche in dem Apostolischen Zeitalter,” p. 66. 


BOOK I,—FIRST CENTURY. 29 


religious institution. The Pentecostal miracle was, 
moreover, the inauguration of the glorious era fore- 
told by Jesus Christ, when adoration should be no 
longer associated with certain sacred edifices, but 
when the whole world should become again the 
temple of God. We must carefully distinguish, in 
this miracle, the religious fact from the attendant 
circumstances and figurative symbols. The “mighty 
rushing wind,” the tongues like as of fire, which rest 
upon the Apostles’ heads, are sublime types of the 
inward miracle: the wind symbolizes the invisible 
action and sovereign freedom of the Divine Spirit, 
(John iii, 8;) the fire its purifying virtue, (Isaiah vi, 
6, 71) and the form under which this fire appeared 
suggests its chief mode of operation in the moral world. 
Speech is, in truth, as has been well said, a divine elo- 
quence which sways human freedom. / Speech is the 
noblest medium between the Creator and the creature ; 
as between the creatures themselves, by it the Gos- 
pel is to fight and conquer/ We fully admit the mar- 
velous character of that scene in the upper chamber 
at Jerusalem. The sovereign God, who rules in the 
world of nature no less than in the world of spirit and 
of grace, has undoubtedly the right to borrow from 
the former effective symbols to set forth to the eye 
the great facts of the latter. “He maketh the winds 
his angels, and the flames of fire his ministers.” 
Heb. i, 7. We must rise at once, however, from the 
sign to the thing signified. In this, as in every other 
instance, the miracle belongs essentially to the moral 
and invisible world. It is wrought in the hearts 
of the disciples, who, according to the testimony 
of sacred history, “were all filled with the Holy 


30 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Ghost.” Acts i, 4. They had already received it in 
a measure, but they were not entirely filled with it 
till then. ΑἹ] the barriers between earth and heaven 
were removed. The fullness of God could now fill 
the human soul; by the Holy Spirit God himself 
could henceforth inhabit this living sanctuary, and 
the promise of the spiritual return of Christ was 
abundantly realized. Until this time, the young 
Church might be compared to a ship ready to depart, 
its sails spread for the wind. The breath from on 
high now blows upon it; it is no longer an inert 
mass; it is an animated body ; it may set forth on its 
flight over all seas, and be they stormy or calm, it 
shall be ever advancing toward its appointed haven. 
This first outpouring of the Spirit of God was not 
restricted to the Apostles, for the sacred writer de- 
clares that all who were in the upper chamber were 
filled with it. Nor was it a simple illumination of 
the understanding: the Holy Ghost was first and 
most sensibly shed abroad in the Aearts of the primi- 
tive Christians. His influence went down at once to 
the very center of their moral and religious life, that 
it might assimilate to itself one by one all their facul- 
ties. But this assimilation was not realized in a 
moment. ‘They did not in one brief instant acquire 
all knowledge. That which they already knew was 
quickened, while the Spirit went on day by day to 
enrich them with understanding, and to “lead them 
into all truth.” John xvi, 13. 

His presence in their midst was marked by one 
miracle more extraordinary than those which had 
preceded it. The disciples began to speak in un- 
known tongues. This miracle, which, with some 


BOOK 1.——-FIRST CENTURY. 21 


modifications, is repeated several times in the apos- 
tolic age, was in harmony with the essential character 
of this period, which we have called the period of the 
purely supernatural. The human element seems to 
pale and succumb in its first contact with the divine. 
The Spirit of God, on its descent from heaven, finds 
human language a vessel too small to contain it. 
The ordinary forms of speech are broken through ; 
a language which is beyond all known forms takes 
the place of ordinary words. It is the burning, mys- 
terious tongue of ecstasy. Thus we regard those 
unknown tongues, of which mention is made in the 
Church of the first century. To speak in an un- 
known tongue, was to use that ineffable language 
which has no analogue in human speech. The Pen- 
tecostal miracle had a special character, by which it 
was distinguished from kindred miracles; the dis- 
‘ciples were understood by all who ran together on 
the first tidings of the prodigy wrought in the upper 
chamber. Was there in this exceptional language a 
marvelous power, which went from soul to soul, and 
triumphed over the diversity of idioms? or did these 
Jews, gathered at Jerusalem from all parts of the 
' world, really catch the accents of their various dia- 
lects? The problem is beyond solution. It is, how- 
ever, certain that the miracle, at least under this 
special form, was of no permanent character. [τὸ- 
nazus and Tertullian have erroneously asserted that 
the early Christians retained the use of the gift of 
tongues, and employed it in carrying the Gospel to 
the nations of the world.* The style of the sacred 


* Trenzeus, “‘ Adv. Heres., Book V,c. vi; Tertullian, ‘‘ Contra Marc.,”’ 
Book V, c. viil. 


32 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


writers clearly shows that they had learned the Greek 

language in an ordinary manner, and did not possess 
it by miraculous gift and by inspiration, for they 
wrote it incorrectly, and in a form surcharged with 
Hebraisms. We know also that Peter had an inter- 
preter at Rome.* St. Paul seems not to have under- 
stood the language of the inhabitants of Lystra and 
Derbe, who wished to sacrifice to him as to a god. 
Acts xiv, 11--14. 

The miracle of Pentecost was an enacted prophecy 
of the happy time when all the diversities created by 
evil will be lost in the unity of love. Is not this 
prophecy receiving a constant fulfillment as Chris- 
tianity masters, one after another, the languages of 
mankind, and makes them the media for conveying 
its immortal truths? “The Church in her humility,” 
says the venerable Bede, “re-forms the unity of lan- 
guage broken before by pride.” + 

We know with what success Peter replied to the 
raillery of some unbelieving Jews, who had found 
their way into the wondering crowd. Three thousand 
persons were won to the Church by that first preach- 
ing of the Apostle. This rapid increase was soon to 
bring about an open rupture between the young 
Church and Judaism. The Sadducean party took 
the lead in the persecution. It has been declared to 
be very unlikely that the Pharisees, who had been the 
most bitter enemies of Jesus Christ, would have let 
themselves be thus outstripped by their rivals. But it 


* According to the testimony of Papias in ‘‘ Eusebius,” Book VII, 
C. XXXI1X. 

+ “ Unitatem linguarum quam superbia Babylonis disperserat hu- 
militas Ecclesize recolligit.”” See Note D, on the Pentecostal miracle. 

{ Baur, “ Paulus,” pp. 34, 35. 


BOOK. f.——FIRST GENTURY, 33 


must not be forgotten that at this period the Church 
had not yet comprehended the doctrine of Christ in 
all its issues. It had not yet broken the outward 
bond with Judaism. The point on which it insisted 
most strongly was the resurrection of the dead ; now 
this dogma was particularly odious to the Sadducees. 
Annas and Caiaphas, who presided over the council 
before which the Apostles were cited, were the well- 
known leaders of the Roman or Sadducean party. 
Acts v,17. The only judge who showed himself im- 
partial toward the Church was the Pharisee Gamaliel. 

During all this early time the influence of the 
Apostle Peter predominates. The part thus taken by 
him has been urged as a proof of his primacy. But 
on closer examination it will be seen that he does but 
exercise his natural gifts, purified and ennobled by 
the Divine Spirit. Peter was the son of a fisherman 
named Jonas, of the village of Bethsaida, in Galilee. 


Matt. xvi, 17; Johni, 44. He was among the dis- - - 


ciples of John the Baptist, and was thus prepared to 
respond favorably to the call of Jesus Christ. He 
soon received his vocation as an apostle. His dis- 
position was quick and ardent, but his zeal was 
blended with presumption and pride. Living in con- 
stant contact with the Master, as one of the three dis- 
ciples who enjoyed his closest intimacy, he conceived 
for him a strong affection. His impetuous nature 
was, however, far from being brought at once under 
control. He had noble impulses, like that which 
prompted his grand testimony to the Saviour: “ Thou 
art the Christ of God.” Matt. xvi, 16. But he was 
also actuated by many an earthly motive, which drew 
down upon him the Master's sharp reproach. Once, 
3 


34 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


under the influence of Jewish prejudice, he repelled 
with indignation the idea of the humiliating death of 
Christ. At another time he was eager to appear 
more courageous than all the other disciples, and 
again yielding to his natural impetuosity, he drew his 
sword to defend Him whose “kingdom is not of this 
world.” It was needful that the yet incoherent ele- 
ments of his moral nature should be thrown into the 
crucible of trial. His shameful fall resulted in a de- 
cisive moral crisis, which commenced in that moment 
when, pierced to the heart by the look of Christ, he 
went out of the court of the high priest and wept 
bitterly. He appears entirely changed in the last 
interview he has with the Saviour on the shores of 
the Lake of Tiberias. Jesus Christ restores him 
after his threefold denial, by calling forth a threefold 
confession of his love. John xxi, 15. 

Nothing but determined prejudice could construe 
the tender solicitude of the Master for this disciple 
into an official declaration of his primacy. We are 
here in the region of feeling alone, not on the standing 
ground of right and legal institutions. Nor has the 
primacy of Peter any more real foundation in the 
famous passage, “ 7 es Petrus.’ Jesus Christ ad- 
mirably characterized by this image the ardent and 
generous nature of his disciple, and that courage of 
the pioneer which marked him out as the first laborer 
in the foundation of the primitive Church. The son 
of Jonas was its most active founder, and, as it were, 
its first stone. He was also the rock against which 
the first tempest from without spent its fury.* Be- 


* In the course of this history it will be seen that the Church, for 
three centuries, did not attach the Romish sense to Matt. xvi, 18. 


BOOK 1;——-FIRST: CENTURY: 35 


yond this, the narrative of St. Luke lends no coun- 
tenance to any hierarchical notions. 

Every thing is natural and spontaneous in the con- 
duct of St. Peter. He is not official president of a 
sort of apostolic college. He acts only with the con- 
currence of his brethren, whether in the choice of 
a new apostle,* or at Pentecost,t or before the San- 
hedrim. Peter had been the most deeply humbled 
of the disciples, therefore he was the first to be 
exalted. John’s part being at this time inconspicu- 
ous, no other apostle is named with Peter, because he 
fills the whole scene with his irrepressible zeal and 
indefatigable activity. 

The Christian mission during this period gained 
two altogether exceptional successes. A few weeks 
after the baptism of the three thousand converts of 
the day of Pentecost, five thousand souls were added 
to the Church as the result of the miraculous heal- 
ing of the impotent man, and of another sermon of 
St. Peter.. Acts iv, 4. The Church continued for a 
long time rapidly to receive adherents in numbers 
scarcely less surprising. This first offensive move- 
ment of Christianity was accomplished with a holy 
impetuosity and joyous enthusiasm. It has been 
asserted that the number of the conversions is too 
enormous not to indicate a mythical character in the 
sacred narrative.t Such an assertion does not take 
into account the extraordinary zeal displayed by the 
first Christians, the powerful inspiration by which 


* “And Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples.”” Acts i, 15. 

+ “But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice.” 
Acts ll, 14. 

Ἐ Baur, “ Paulus,’ p. 27. 


36 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


they were animated, and the impressive miracles 
which accompanied their preaching. Acts v, 15, 16. 

It would be a mistake also to imagine that all these 
new converts had reached the same stage of religious 
development. They differed in piety and in knowl- 
edge, but they had nevertheless received the Gospel 
with sincerity. In a short time the Church had 
gathered into itself more than ten thousand persons. 
This was assuredly a miracle not less amazing than 
that of the day of Pentecost. 

To these triumphs Judaism replied by persecution. 
The Church has had time, during eighteen centuries, 
to become accustomed to this brutal and senseless 
appeal to force. We need not here dwell on the con- 
stitution of the Sanhedrim. We know that it was 
composed of seventy-one members, that it was pre- 
sided over by the High Priest, and that from the time 
of the Roman conquest it constituted the religious 
tribunal of the nation. It was not always possible to 
distinguish with clearness the religious sphere from 
the civil, so closely had the two been united in the 
old theocracy. The Sanhedrim naturally assumed 
as its right to summon to its bar any who attacked 
the religion of the country. Now the apostolic 
preaching appeared, in the eyes of those who regarded 
Jesus Christ as a false prophet, to be an assault upon 
the national religion. A theocratic government is a 
government of constraint. Freedom of conscience 
would have been an unmeaning sound under the 
Jewish economy. . But the abrogation of the ancient 
economy had abrogated the right of religious coer- 
cion. Persecution on the part of the Sanhedrim was 
now only an odious abuse of power. It must be 


BOOK I,—FIRST CENTURY. 7 


further admitted that men like Annas and Caiaphas 
cared little for theocratic rights, for they belonged to 
the sect which repudiated the spirit of the ancient 
religion. 

This first persecution revealed the deep-seated en- 
mity which exists between skeptical Materialism and 
the Gospel. We shall often have occasion, in the 
course of this history, to show how intolerant is in- 
credulity, and how impatient of the freedom of sin- 
cere belief. We shall see that the Sadducean spirit 
is always essentially a persecuting spirit. At this 
time we find that the people were not, as subse- 
quently, in favor of the adoption of violent measures 
against the Church, for the persecutors feared to 
offend the multitude by maltreating the Apostles. 
fkets-v, 26. 

Immediately after the healing of the impotent man 
at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple, the magistrate 
in charge of the sanctuary, and who appears to have 
been a man of rank, since Josephus names him di- 
rectly after the High Priest,* seizes Peter and John, 
and casts them into prison. A solemn meeting of 
the Sanhedrim is convoked, and the Apostles appear 
before this iniquitous tribunal, in which fanaticism 
sits side by side with skepticism. The grandeur of 
the scene is beyond description. The entire world 
is at this time held under terrible oppression. A 
heavy yoke bows the heads of all. Every effort has 
been made to break it—open revolt, treason, force, 
and cunning. But the chains have been only riveted 
the firmer upon the struggling race. Now, for the 
first time, despotism finds a barrier that will not break, 


* Josephus, ‘ Bell. Jud.,”’ vi, 5, 3. 


38 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


and meets with invincible resistance. It must bend 
before these ignorant and unlearned men, who have 
no weapons of war in their hands, no inflammatory 
words on their lips, but who oppose an indomitable 
faith to all the threats hurled against them. In this 
first conflict between conscience and force victory 
remains with the former. This day is liberty born 
into the world, never to be destroyed. 

The president of the Sanhedrim asks Peter in what 
name he healed the impotent man. The Apostle 
replies with the utmost respect to the magistrates of 
his nation. He recognizes their authority like the 
most docile of their subordinates. Acts iv, 8. Peter 
is neither a rebel nor an agitator. He is a servant 
of God and of truth; therefore he is invincible upon 
the ground of religion. With what boldness does he 
avow, in the midst of that council, which a few days 
before had condemned Jesus Christ, the name of the 
crucified Lord! “If we be this day examined of the 
good deed done to the impotent man, by what means 
he is made whole; be it known to you and to all the 
people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus of Naza- 
reth, whom ye crucified, whom God hath raised from 
the dead, even by him doth this man stand here be- 
fore you whole.” Acts iv, 8-10. The Sanhedrim de- 
liberate on this reply, so firm and courageous. The 
result of their deliberation is to forbid the Apostles 
to speak or to teach in the name of Jesus. Acts 
iv, 18. By such a decision the first step is taken in 
the path of persecution. Had the judges of Peter 
and John gone no further than this prohibition they 
would have even then deserved the name of persecu- 
tors. To hinder the manifestation of a conviction, 


BOOK ΞΡ SI. CENTURY. 39 


to restrain the efforts at proselytism made by a sin- 
cere faith, is to persecute the immortal soul ; it is to 
deny its right, and to prepare the way for violent 
persecution, since conscience does not allow of con- 
cessions to fear or danger. A duty becomes all the 
more sacred when obstacles are placed in the way 
of its accomplishment. Disobedience to an unjust 
command is dictated by the same motives which, in 
the ordinary course of things, would lead to a scru- 
pulous conformity tg law. The Sanhedrim thought 
they were taking a safe and inoffensive step. From 
that step, however, they will be fatally led on to vio- 
lent persecution. Peter and John appeal from the 
authority of this iniquitous tribunal to the authority 
of God himself and to his clear command: ‘“ Whether 
it be right in the sight of God,” they exclaim, “to 
obey you rather than God, judge ye.” Socrates had 
made the same appeal before the Athenian judges. 
We admire it in the mouth of the great philosopher, 
but how is its power enhanced as the utterance of 
those who are guided not merely by the inspiration 
of a noble heart and a true genius, but by the light 
of revelation. 7 

The Apostles, as they had declared, pay no heed 
to an unjust prohibition. They resume their preach- 
ing with the same success as before. They are 
thrown into prison. Miraculously set at large, they 
begin again to proclaim the Gospel. Cited anew be- 
fore the Sanhedrim, they preserve the same attitude. 
They are calm and immovable, as becomes the dis- 
ciples of that Jesus whom “God hath exalted to his 
right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour.” Acts v, 31. 
They would have been again incarcerated but for the 


40 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


intervention of Gamaliel, who takes up their defense, 
and gives wise counsel of toleration. The closing 
words of the speech of this venerable doctor, on the 
danger of fighting against God, show a great breadth 
of view. Acts v, 39. Was he expressing the general 
good-will of his sect toward the Christians, or did he 
personally stand aloof from the rest of the Pharisees, 
by a more independent spirit? Did his toleration 
cover, as has been asserted, contempt for the new 
religion, or was it founded on an exaggerated confi- 
dence in Judaism? Be the answer what it may, 
Gamaliel obtained from the Sanhedrim the liberation 
of the Apostles, after they had been scourged and 
again charged to speak no more in the name of Jesus. 
But.they were men of purpose, and nothing could 
turn them from the accomplishment of their duty. 
Peter and John had shown, by their calm and firm 
attitude, that they were the conquerors in the strug- 
gle of force with conscience. Their readiness to 
endure all sufferings and ill treatment declared yet 
more Clearly that their cause was not’ to be crushed. 
Heroic words, such as they had uttered, would be 
meaningless unless they were prepared to honor them 
by submitting to all the consequences of resistance. 
He who is resolved to suffer and to die for God can- 
not be vanquished. His noble endurance is also’an 
ineffaceable disgrace to his persecutors, and every 
fresh victim to their rage makes persecution more 
detested. There is, then, no graver mistake than fora 
persecuted people to offer material as well as moral re- 
sistance ; this is to subject themselves to the chances 
of strength, to the risks of a struggle of which the 
issue is always uncertain, \He who takes the sword 


BOOK E—-FIRSE. CENTURY. AI 


deserves to perish by the sword, for he implicitly ad- 
mits the right of the strongest. / Moral resistance, on 
the contrary, knows no chances, no risks. It is 
linked to an immortal principle, and destined to cer- 
tain triumph. 

The young Church thus persecuted took refuge in 
prayer. Hence the majestic calmness, the blending 
of gentleness and indomitable energy which distin- 
guished it. In such conflicts the soul finds serenity 
only on the summits of faith. To what an elevation 
were the Apostles lifted in that sublime prayer which 
was inspired by the circumstances in which they had 
just found themselves. From the particular fact of 
the persecution, they rise to the general law of the 
religious history which it reveals. They see it in 
that opposition between the princes of this world 
and the Son of God, set forth in the prophetic strains 
of Psalm ii, They comprehend that the bloody and 
victorious strife of Calvary is to be ever renewed. 
They feel themselves close bound to Christ the cru- 
cified ; therefore they ask not to be delivered from 
persecution, but only to be faithful to him under 
their cross, and to be filled with his Spirit that they 
may the better glorify the name of the Holy Child 
Jesus. Acts iv, 24-30. God manifested his pres- 
ence in their midst by a miraculous token. The 
place where they were was shaken. This miracle 
contained a promise for every time of persecution. 
The Church of the catacombs and the Church of the 
desert alike received its fulfillment, for in both there 


was given a marvellous manifestation of the presence 
of God. 


42 EARLY YEARS OF ΤΉΝ CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


δ. II. The Teaching and First Constitution of the 
Church at Ferusalem. 


From its very birth the Christian Church is called 
to defend itself against the attacks of its adversaries, 
and to contend for the claims of truth. The oppo- 
sition to Christianity assume from the outset various 
forms. ‘The first to be encountered is that of scoff- 
ing unbelief. This foe has not yet sharpened and 
polished the weapons with which, in subsequent 
times, it will wound by the hands of a Celsus anda 
Lucian. But was not the laugh of the scorner heard 
on the very day when the Holy Spirit descended 
upon the Church? Did not his voice cry, “ These 
men are full of new wine?” And from the scorn- 
er’s point of view it was a fair conclusion. The su- 
pernatural is absurd to those who discern nothing 
beyond the circle of the visible ; and herein is its 
peculiar glory. The laugh of unbelief has never 
ceased in all these eighteen centuries to ring through 
the world. But ridicule alone was not enough. Cal- 
umny and false insinuations must be enlisted in the 
same cause. The miracles of the primitive Church 
were incontestable ; they could not be brought in 
question, but they might, like those of Jesus Christ, be 
ascribed to witchcraft, and to the powers of darkness. 
The arts of magic were much believed in at this 
epoch, as in all periods of religious crisis. There 
was, therefore, profound subtilty in likening the Apos- 
tles to common. magicians. Such an idea is evi- 
dently present in the question of the Sanhedrim to 
Peter and John, after the healing of the impotent 
man: “By what power or by what name have ye 


ΒΘΘΙ ΞΕ ΟἸΥ Τ ΘΕΥ. 43 


done this?” Acts iv, 7. The enemies of the Apos- 
tles did not admit that they were the organs of divine 
power. The influence, then, by which they made so 
much stir must be diabolical or magical. Side by 
side with this open unbelief, the primitive Church 
had to encounter the ignorance and prejudices of a 
people of formalists and materialists. They had to 
establish the claims of Jesus Christ; that is, of a 
humble and crucified Messiah, before a nation which 
was ready to believe only in a glorious king—a new 
Maccabeus. 

To meet all objections, the Church had ready a 
sunple and popular apology. We at once admit that 
they appealed without hesitation to the testimony of 
reason for all the facts coming within its competence. 
Thus, in reply to the absurd charge of drunkenness 
brought against the disciples, Peter urges that it is 
but the third hour of the day—the hour, that is, of 
morning prayer, before which the Jews never pre- 
sumed to eat or drink. Acts 1, 15. But the advo- 
cates of Christianity do not pause long on such vin- 
dications. They have a line of argument peculiarly 
their own. | 

It is to be observed that the miracles are rather 
the occasion than the cause of the apology which 
accompanies them. Peter does not say, “ Believe 
because of this amazing gift of tongues, or these 
miraculous cures.” He says, on the contrary, “ Be- 
lieve in the reality, the divinity, of the miracles on 
the scriptural and moral grounds, which show their 
necessity and establish their lawfulness.” These mir- 
acles certainly contributed to the rapid spread of the 
new faith by the impression they produced upon the 


44 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


people ; but so little are they the pivot on which the 
apology of the Apostles turns, that they are not the 
proof, but rather the object of the proof. We except 
one single miracle, which is the essential miracle of 
Christianity... The, resurrection πα» Ghiast sis mer 
merely a marvel ; it is also a great religious fact. It 
is the glorious seal of redemption. Therefore it oc- 
cupies the first place in the preaching of the Apostles. 
Peter constantly appeals to it both before the people 
and betore: the ‘Sanhedrini. Acts 11532; Al 15 6 iy, 
10; v, 30. The Apostles regarded themselves pre- 
eminently as the witnesses of the resurrection. 
Nothing, in fact, gave so solid a foundation to the 
new religion as this splendid triumph of Jesus Christ 
over death. It was the proof of his divine mission 
and of that of the Church, and the seal affixed by the 
hand of God to teaching in his name. “ Between us 
and you,” the Apostles seem to say, “ God has judged : 
by raising up Jesus he has sovereignly declared that 
he was indeed Christ the Lord.” 

Next to the proof drawn from the resurrection of 
the Lord, that which is most prominent in the dis- 
courses of Peter is the evidence from Scripture. He 
sets himself to show the harmony of the facts, in 
process of accomplishment, with Jewish prophecy. 
The first apologist of the Church could take no other 
ground. An appeal addressed to Jews by Christians 
of Jewish extraction must be made to a tribunal re- 
cognized by all, and this was no other than Holy 
Scripture. If the Apostles at Jerusalem succeeded 
in showing that the facts of which they were the 
witnesses had been foretold in the Scriptures, every 
upright Jew must be enlisted on their side. The 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 45 


Christian apology did not rise, in this its first stage, 
to the height to which it was carried by St. John and 
St. Paul. In form and spirit it was limited and char- 
acterized by the views so prominently set forth in 
the first Gospel. 

Thus Peter commences by showing that the mira- 
cle of Pentecost is the fulfillment of the prophecy of 
Joel, who foretold the outpouring of the prophetic 
Spirit at the time of Messiah’s appearing. Acts 1], 
17-20. He points out that the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ had been predicted in Psalm xvi, which could 
not have reference to David, since the sepulcher of 
that king was still to be seen in Jerusalem. Acts ii, 
25-34. In his second discourse, as in his defense 
before the Sanhedrim, Peter shows that the suffer- 
ings and death of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, which 
were such a stumbling-block to the Jews, were set 
forth in the prophecies of the Old Testament. “ This 
is the stone which was set at nought of you build- 
ers, which is become the head of the corner.” Acts 
Hie EO τὸ 11 Ἐ2: ΕΓ Apostle, hke St. Matthew, 
uses great freedom in quoting the Old Testament. 
Absorbed with the idea, so true in itself, that the 
thought of Messiah runs through the whole of the 
sacred oracles, he often turns into positive prophecy 
declarations of Scripture which have only an indirect 
reference to Gospel facts. 

In this first apology of Christianity many appeals 
are made to the conscience. The conclusion of Pe- 
ter’s discourses is always an invitation to repentance, 
and this invitation he urges by boldly charging home 
the great crime committed by the Jewish people : 
“You crucified the Lord of glory,” he cries again 


46 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


and again to the murderers of Jesus Christ. He 
darts this terrible accusation like a barbed arrow into 
the hearts of his hearers, and thus he touches their 
vulnerable point. He pierces their conscience, and 
strong conviction is followed by multiplied conver- 
sions. Thus, the apology of the primitive Church is 
not simply defensive : it is able to take the offensive, 
and to carry the warfare into the hearts of its adver- 
saries with all the authority of truth and the ardor of 
love. “The Apostles understood,” says Calvin, “that 
the Gospel is also fire and sword.” 

In estimating the doctrinal teaching of the Apos- 
tles at this period, it is needful to avoid exaggerating 
or detracting from the influence of the new ideas, 
which were at the basis of their belief. If there is 
full evidence that they declared the truth of Christ 
in all its essentials, the evidence seems to us no less 
clear that they still enveloped that truth in Jewish 
forms. 

It would be utterly unjust, however, to confound 
the primitive Church with this or that Jewish sect. 
It clung most closely to the prophetic portion of the 
Old Testament, that is to say, to the elements in 
the sacred book which best harmonized with itself. 
Never has transition been more admirably accom- 
plished than that from the old covenant to the new, 
for the very simple reason that the latter struck all 
its roots down into the former. In the period which 
immediately followed the Pentecost the primitive 
Church was not called to break the tie which bound 
it to’the temple. It still celebrated the Levitical 
worship. The assiduous attendance of the Apostles 
in the holy place is very notable ; and they scrupu- 


BOOK “I.— FIRST CENTURY. 47 


lously observe the ceremonial law, which, in their 
view, still stands in its integrity. If they admit that 
all the nations of the earth are to be blessed in the 
Seed of Abraham, they have not yet comprehended 
that in Christ Jesus all national barriers are done 
away, and that the privileges and the prescriptions 
of Judaism are alike abolished. They still believe in 
the necessity of circumcision. But, on the other. 
hand, they are broadly distinguished from their na- 
tion at large, not only by reaction against the form- 
alism of the Pharisees, but also by their faith in 
Jesus Christ. This, their simple and artless faith, 
has in it no speculative element. The divinity of 
Messiah is not formally stated in Peter’s preaching, 
but it comes out spontaneously. What correspond- 
ence is there between the Messiah of the Ebionites, 
the Prophet of the “ Clementines,” and the Christ of 
St. Peter? On the one hand we have a simple man, 
like Adam or Moses ; on the other, we have the Sav- 
lour represented as “seated at the right hand of 
(το Ὁ ΓΑ ΘΙ 1.22. 34). othe Prince of. lle?) (Acts 
iii, 15 ;) the One apart from whom there is no sal- 
vation, (Acts iv, 12;) Him who is spoken of in Psalm 
ii as the Lord’s Anointed, and his first begotten 
Son. Acts iv, 26. Let it not be forgotten that these 
illustrious names are given to Christ at a time when 
his power had not yet been gloriously manifested in 
the extension and establishment of his Church. Evi- 
dently, by this recognition of the dignity and sover- 
eignty of Jesus Christ, the Church cast away all 
Jewish prejudices. Enough stress has not been laid 
on the conclusion of Peter’s sermons, which always 
sets forth faith in Christ as the infallible means of 


48 EARLY YEARS: OF “THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


pardon and of regeneration. And again, is it not in 
his name that all are to be baptized? ‘The relation 
between Christ and the sinner is represented by 
Peter, as it was by Jesus Christ himself. Of this 
unique relation between the soul and the Saviour, 
St. Paul and St. John, drawing their inspiration 
from the last discourses of the Master, will presently 
unfold to us the profound significance.* 

Christian doctrine had, it is evident, at this time, 
no systematic form. It was subsequently to develop 
all its consequences, to define its outlines, and, in the 
repeated shocks of a salutary conflict, to cast away 
its Jewish garment. This first era of the Church 
was to be the period, not of conflict and debate, but 
of the manifestation of the direct, sovereign and ex- 
traordinary action of the Divine Spirit. The history 
of the Church itself, properly speaking, was not to 
begin till later. The first Christians had no thought 
of a history. They believed in an immediate return 
of Jesus Christ “to restore all things.” They sup- 
posed that the end of the world was at hand, and that 
the last days foretold by Joel had begun to dawn. Acts 
lil, 17; ii, 19, 20. Thus they awaited those days of 
refreshing from the presence of the Lord which were 
to inaugurate the second coming of Christ. 

Ecclesiastical organization was as far from being 
fixed, in this first period, as was the doctrine of the 

* All these observations are called for by the bold statements of 
the Tubingen School. Schwegler, ‘‘ Nach Apost. Zeitalt.,” p. 10; 
Baur, in his book on St. Paul; Ritschl, ‘‘ Enstehung der Altcatho- 
lischen Kirche,” pp. 108, 109, affirm the identity of primitive Chris- 
tianity with Judaism. They rest their assertion on such expressions 


as “ Jesus, a man approved of God.” Acts ii, 22. But they take no 
notice of all the other declarations which we have mentioned. 


BOGK= L——-FIRST ‘CENTURY. 49 


Church from being formulated. A Church must be 
founded before it can havea constitution. The river 
is as yet too near its source to flow in a regularly- 
channeled bed. We find, therefore, no office, properly 
* so called, nor any fixed rule for the admission of new 
members. All offices are centered in the apostolate. 
The Apostles receive gifts for the community. Acts 
iv, 35. They attend to the distribution of alms, as 
well as to preaching. Acts li, 42; vi, 2. When some 
subject of general interest is mooted, they convene a 
meeting of the faithful. It cannot be disputed that 
they exercised a large authority in the primitive 
Church. The apostolate at first united in one all the 
various offices, which were by degrees to become 
detached. It is, then, of great importance that we 
should rightly conceive the situation. 

We must set aside, first of all, any ideas of sacer- 
dotalism. It must not be forgotten that, at the 
period when the apostolic authority was used with 
most power in the Church, the Church still acknowl- 
edged the Jewish priesthood. Besides, Christianity 
recognizes no priesthood but that of Christ, com- 
municated by faith to the Christian. The Apostles 
were not the sole organs of inspiration, for the Holy 
Spirit which was promised was granted to all the 
disciples assembled in the upper chamber a few 
days after the ascension. We have fully shown 
that on the day of Pentecost all the Christians were 
filled with the Holy Ghost. It is incontestable that 
in the primitive Church some private Christians, not 
invested with the apostolic office, had more influence 
than the majority of the Apostles ; it is enough to cite 
the names of Stephen, Philip, and James. In what, 

4 


50 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


then, consisted the apostolic office? Their name of 
messenger has nothing exclusive in it, since all Chris- 
tians are the witnesses of Jesus Christ. Their num- 
ber supplies us with one element for the resolution 
of the question. They were twelve. Evidently this 
symbolical number points to the twelve tribes of the 
chosen people. The Apostles are the ideal represen- 
tation of the true Israel, and answer, in the spiritual 
ancestry, to the twelve sons of Jacob. They clearly 
do not represent the priestly tribe, but the twelve 
tribes ; that is to say, the people of God as a whole. 
In other words, they are the nucleus of the Church, 
so made by Jesus Christ himself. Apostolical suc- 
cession is not, then, the privilege of a certain portion 
of the body, but of the whole ; the Christian Church 
itself carries on the apostolic office. There is noth- 
ing in such a conception derogatory to the authority 
of the Apostles. In them were concentrated, so to 
speak, all the gifts bestowed on the Christians of the 
primitive Church, for they were the immediate wit- 
nesses of Christ. This qualification of being a direct 
witness is that specially required by Peter, when the 
place of Judas is to be filled. Acts i, 21, 22. In 
short, an apostle is pre-eminently a witness of Jesus 
Christ, and officially so recognized; he is by this 
very characteristic the authentic representative of 
the primitive Church. His authority is not in any 
way defined ; it varies in the case of various apostles, 
according to the nature of the gifts of each, but it is 
exercised most largely during this period, while the 
Church is yet young and unorganized. The primi- 
tive apostolate, founded upon personal contact with 
Jesus Christ, was not designed to be transmitted ; it 


BOOK -L.-—FIRST: CENTURY. 51 


was to give place subsequently to a more spiritual 
apostleship.* 

The conditions of entrance into the Church are at 
first extremely simple. No guaranty of preparation, 
of instruction and examination is required, because 
conversion has at this period an exceptionally sudden 
and supernatural character. The sign of initiation 
into the new society is baptism. The gift of the Holy 
Spirit is so far from being bound to the material act, 
that sometimes it precedes immersion. The formula 
of baptism was not pronounced in full ; the neophytes 
were simply baptized in the name of the Lord.t The 
Church, though not separated from the temple, felt 
nevertheless that it constituted a body apart, to which 
adherence must be given. Its discipline shares in 
the miraculous character of this period, as is shown 
by the history of Ananias and Sapphira. Acts v, I-11. 
Their death, which it may be observed does not 
necessarily imply their perdition, since there may 
have been a coincident awakening of conscience, 
is the effect of the direct and terrible discipline 
of the Divine Spirit.’ It reveals the will of God, 
that in his Church itself there should be a burning 
crucible, in which the pure gold should be twice 
purified. 

The worship of the primitive Church is also of an 
exceptional character. The disciples are continually 
in the temple ; they go up to it at the hour of prayer 
and of sacrifice. Yet they have also their secret 


* Some have discovered a sort of anticipation of the diaconate in 
this office of the young men who carried out the bodies of Ananias 
and Sapphira. But this is quite a gratuitous supposition. 

t Acts ii, 38. Ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Acts x, 48. 


52° EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


worship, celebrated in the upper room at Jerusalem.* 
This, if it borrows some forms from the synagogue, 
has nevertheless a stamp of originality. We recog- 
nize in it the essential elements by which it will be 
ultimately characterized. Teaching, adoration, song, 
prayer, and the eucharistic meal, are its principal 
features.} 

We must be especially careful not to deprive it of 
its primitive simplicity. The teaching did not take 
the form of preaching, properly so called ; it was an 
unstudied speech, springing from the heart. The 
Apostles were not the only speakers ; the other Chris- 
tians spoke as freely as they of the wonderful works 
of God. Acts ii, 4. The hymn and prayer borrowed 
their forms of solemn poetry from Old Testament 
prophecy ; the whole assembly took part, but in what 
manner is not clearly described. Acts iv, 24. The 
eucharistic meal of the Church at Jerusalem bears 
no resemblance whatever to what is called the Sacra- 
ment ofthe Altar.+ Uhe first ‘Christians ‘still held 
themselves in subjection to the ceremonial law ; thus 
for them the altar was in the temple, and nowhere 
else. The Lord’s Supper could not then have any 
possible analogy with a sacrifice. It was not kept 
distinct at this period from an ordinary meal; it was 
the conclusion of ordinary meals, as it had been the 
conclusion of the Passover feast. The commemora- 
tion of redemption took place every time that Chris- 
tians gathered around the family table. St. Luke 


* See Harnack, “‘ Der Christliche Gemeinde Gottesdienst im Apost. 
Zeitalt.,” pp. 69-131. 

+ In Acts ii, 42, “‘the apostles’ doctrine” represents the element of 
teaching, and ‘‘the breaking of bread” the eucharistic feast. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 53 


says positively that it was observed from house to 
house.* The Agape were only introduced in the 
next period.t 

From all these observations, it appears that the 
distinction between the ordinary and the religious 
life had no existence for the primitive Church, be- 
cause its ordinary life was raised to a height truly 
divine. Hence the supernatural character of its 
piety. The Church is not satisfied, as afterward, 
with infusing the spirit of Christianity into all the 
various social relations ; it translates the pure ideal 
at once into the real, and banishes poverty from 
its midst by the voluntary generosity of the rich. 
Acts iv, 34, 35. ‘As many as were possessors of 
lands or houses sold them.” There was nothing ab- 
solute or compulsory in this community of goods ; it 
was based upon free consent ; but it was certainly for 
the time almost fully carried out in Jerusalem.t The 
history of the Church thus commences with a glorious 
Sabbath, in which every thing is marvelous and excep- 
tional ; this precedes the long week of toil and strug- 
gle which is even now far from ended, just as divine 

grace precedes human effort in the Christian life. 


ἘΚλῶντές Te.KaT’ οἶκον ἄρτον μετελάμβανον τροφῆς ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει. 
Acts ii, 46. τ 

t When Thiersch and Harnack assert that the first Christians ob- 
served the Sabbath from this time, they speak without proof. St. 
Luke declares that Christian worship was celebrated without dis- 
tinction of days. Καθ’ ἡμέραν. Acts ii, 46. 

1 The words of Peter to Ananias (Acts v, 4) prove that there was 
perfect freedom of action. This community of goods was not abso- 
lute, for we read that the Church was gathered together in the house 
of Mary, the mother of Mark. Acts xii, 12. Neander seems, how- 
ever, to depreciate unduly the significance of the first community of 
possessions. ‘‘ Pflanz,” pp. 39, 40. 


54. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


CHAP] ERA: 


FIRST INTERNAL CONFLICT, AND FIRST EXTENSION 
OF THE CHURCH BEYOND JERUSALEM. 


SI. The Seven Deacons of the Church at Ferusalem. 
Stephen. 


“THE Church could not always remain on the 

calm heights to which the Spirit of God had at 
first carried her. It was needful that the truth, of 
which she was the depositary, should be made her 
own by laborious assimilation ; that she should fol- 
low it out to all its issues, and attain, as it were, her 
moral majority by breaking the bonds of Judaism. 
But this could not be achieved without many a severe 
struggle ; there were inveterate prejudices to be sub- 
dued, which would only yield after a sharp resistance. 
The disputes which arose between the Hebrew and 
Hellenist Jews gave forewarning of the storm soon 
to burst upon the Church. 

Christian charity had spontaneously found a noble 
mode of expression in the new society. In the first 
fervor of zeal the wants of all the poor members were 
supplied. It was only subsequently that certain jeal- 
ousies began to arise about the distribution of the 
alms. The Church had been formed on the occasion 
of a great festival, when numbers of foreign Jews 
were assembled at Jerusalem. Among these a large 
proportion of its members were found. These Jews 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 55 


were designated Hellenist because they spoke the 
Greek language. They had lost some of their Jew- 
ish peculiarities under the influence of the lands in 
which they lived. The Church found among them 
the readiest proselytes. The Jews of Hebrew origin, 
whose national pride was stimulated to excess by 
the Pharisees, despised these Hellenist Jews. They 
regarded them as their inferiors, on the pretext that 
they consorted with Gentiles ; they were wont al- 
most to rank them in the vanguard of paganism. 
These prejudices found their way into the Church, 
and the Hebrew widows had the largest share in the 
almsgiving, while the Hellenist widows were neg- 
lected. The Jews of foreign extraction complained 
loudly of this injustice. Thus within the very in- 
closure of Judaism arose the great question which 
was to excite so much controversy in the first cen- 
tury. It became necessary at once to decide if the 
differences of nationality were or were not abrogated 
by Christianity ; if the new religion was to perpetuate 
or to annul Jewish tradition. The Apostles engaged 
in no theoretical discussion ; they would not at this 
period have been capable of it, but they provided, by 
the institution of a new office, for the removal of any 
inequality in the distribution of alms. 

Until now there had been in the Church no office 
but the apostolate ; the nomination of the seven Dea- 
cons at Jerusalem was the first new wheel introduced 
into the simple machinery. This primitive diaconate 
must be distinguished from that which was subse- 
quently established in a definite form. The further 
we go back in the history of the Church the more 
indefinite in character are all ecclesiastical offices. 


56 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Their limits are not clearly or precisely laid down. 
The regular division of labor is not yet a necessity. 
The seven Deacons chosen to superintend the alms- 
giving are all men distinguished for their missionary 
zeal, and one of them for a time stands out even 
more prominently than the Apostles. In the primi- 
tive Church all speak and act as they are moved by 
the Holy Ghost—there are no hierarchical distinc- 
tions. But this condition of things ceases when the 
ecclesiastical organization is definitely completed ; 
the various offices in the Church are then distin- 
guished by a clear line of demarkation.* 

The institution of the primitive diaconate shows 
how free and spontaneous is every thing in the apos- 
tolic Church. None of its ordinances are appointed 
like the Mosaic institutions ; there is not even the 
semblance of any official declaration of them. They 
arise out of the necessities of new circumstances. 
The organization of the Church is as supple as it is 
simple, and accommodates itself to the various exi- 
gencies of its situation, avoiding only any concession 
to error or to evil. It is evident that this first eccle- 
siastical office springs from the apostolate, and is 
again cut off like a bough from the parent trunk ; it 
is not imposed by the Apostles on the Church, nor 
conferred by way of sacramental transmission. The 


*Vitringa, ‘‘ De Sygnag. Vetere,” Lib. III, pars ii, c. v, shows 
perfectly the difference between the seven Deacons of Jerusalem and 
the Deacons spoken of by Paul. He points out, in the first place, 
that the name ‘‘ Deacon” is not given to the former. He then shows 
that while these had, as their special function, to superintend the 
almsgiving, that duty is not mentioned by St. Paul among those de- 
volving on the Deacons of hisday. Lastly, he rests upon the opinion 
of Chrysostom, ‘‘ Homily XIV, in Act.” 11, 3. 


’ 


BOOK. I.——FIRSE CENTURY. LWA 


seven Deacons are not nominated by the Apostles, 
but chosen by the whole assembly. The imposi- 
tion of hands which they receive bears no resem- 
blance to a priestly consecration. It is the sign of 
their entry upon their office, accompanied with a 
solemn prayer.* To maintain, as do the advocates 
of hierarchical principles, that the Deacons were 
chosen by the assembly instead of being appointed 
by the Apostles because their duties were essen- 
tially temporal and administrative,f is to misconceive 
the part which belonged to them in the primitive 
Church ; it is to depreciate their office—one which 
was filled at first by the Apostles themselves ; it is 
to ignore, in fine, the fact which we shall presently 
establish, that all offices, without exception, were by 
election. 

The seven men chosen to serve the tables were for 
the most part Hellenist Jews, as may be inferred 
from their names. We even find among them a 
proselyte named Nicholas.{ His election indicates 
that the liberal tendency had already gained the 
ascendant, and that the primitive Church was not so 
much in bondage to Jewish prejudices as has been 
asserted. The most remarkable man among the 
seven Deacons is unquestionably Stephen. The sa- 
cred historian is sparing of personal details in his 
case, but the few scattered traits in the narrative 


* Acts vi, 5,6. We shall speak again of the question of the lay- 
- ing on of hands in the primitive Church. 

+ Thiersch, ‘‘ Die Kirche im Apostolischen Zeitalter,” p. 98. 

{ The fathers of the third century make this Nicholas the father of 
the Nicolaitan heresy. (Irenzeus, “‘Contr. Heeres.,” 11, c. xxvii; 
Epiph., “ Heeres.,” ὃ 27.) We shall discuss this opinion when we 
come to speak of the heresies of the early Church. 


58 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


suffice to give us the outline of one of the noblest 
and most beautiful figures of Christian antiquity. 
Stephen appears to us a man of ardent and energetic 
nature, formed for conflict, full of the fire of an en- 
thusiastic conviction. His spirit is remarkable for 
breadth ; he was the first Christian emancipated from 
Jewish prejudices. The love of truth consumes him ; 
for it he is ready to make any sacrifice—not with- 
holding his life. His death is the crowning evidence 
of the disinterested love by which he was impelled ; 
for, like his Master, with the same lips which had 
hurled the anathema at hypocrisy and formalism he 
forgives his murderers, proving at once his holy in- 
dignation against sin and holy pity for the sinner. 
Stephen is the ideal witness for truth, and therefore 
he was the first of the martyrs. He was the fore- 
runner of St. Paul, for he laid down the principles 
which the great Apostle was to develop and victori- 
ously to defend. Is not this abundantly evident from 
the terms of the charge brought against him: “We 
have heard him,” say the false witnesses, “speak 
blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” 
“This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words 
against this holy place and the law.”’ “For we have 
heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall de- 
stroy this place, and shall change the customs which 
Moses delivered us.” Acts vi, 13, 14. It is evident 
that the words of Stephen are represented in a false 
light ; it is a calumny to accuse him of having blas- 
phemed God or Moses, and of having declared the 
destruction of the temple by Jesus Christ and his 
disciples. But it is easy to discern the true beneath 
the false. Stephen had, doubtless, insisted, in his 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 59 


argument with the formalist Jews, on the transitory 
character of the old covenant. He may have com- 
mented on those discourses in which the Master 
showed how the Mosaic law was at once accomplished 
and abolished in himself. He may have repeated the 
Master’s sayings with reference to the true spiritual 
worship, which has no more need of holy places ; and 
he may have proclaimed the substitution of a new 
and final order of things for the old and evanescent. 
In the eyes of the Jews this is his high crime ; this 
is also the glory of his mission. His defense be- 
fore the Sanhedrim would alone suffice to show to 
what an elevation he had been raised by the Spirit 
of God. 

At the first glance, Stephen’s apology may seem 
too remote, too far fetched.* It is not immediately 
evident for what reason he traces in so much detail 
the history of the Jewish people. All is clear, how- 
ever, when the drift of his argument is once per- 
ceived. In this position, as in all others, Stephen 
forgets himself, and thinks only of the truth of which 
he is the organ. He seeks not to be himself ac- 
quitted ; he desires only to defend well his principles. 
He cares nothing for himself—the cause of Jesus 
Christ absorbs him wholly. Thus considered, noth- 
ing can be more admirable than his address. He 
has been charged with blasphemy against Moses and 
against the institutions and revelations of the old 
covenant. He proves that the blasphemy and im- 
piety are not on his part, but on the part of his ad- 
versaries—the worthy descendants of a rebellious 
people, which through every stage of its history had 

* Baur, ‘ Paulus,” 43-45. 


60 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


received with a hard and uncircumcised heart the 
unwearying love of God. 

Stephen makes good his statement by drawing a 
broad historic picture, in which he shows, in parallel 
lines, the goodness of God and the ingratitude of the 
people of the Jews. We feel that he has ever in view 
the last and highest manifestation of that ingratitude, 
and that he perpetually gives to the history a sym- 
bolic and prophetic meaning. He brings to mind, 
first, the origin of the nation and all the promises 
which rested on its cradle, all the blessings and de- 
liverances which were granted to it in the person of 
Abraham. This recital shows, on the one hand, how 
deeply Stephen has been calumniated in the charge 
of blasphemy against the God of his fathers, and on 
the other, brings out the guilty obduracy of a people 
so richly blessed. The largest part of the address is 
taken up with the history of Moses, and this for the 
reason, that the contrast between the goodness of 
God and the unbelief of the chosen people never ap- 
peared in characters more strongly marked than at 
that time. This Moses, chosen to be the deliverer 
of Israel, miraculously saved by God and visibly pre- 
pared for this mission, is rejected by his own people 
on his first attempt to aid them. Acts vii, 26—20. 
He meets with the same reception when he returns 
from the desert, where God has trained him for his 
great work. Acts vii, 29-35. He has still to contend 
with the same slowness of heart to believe, after the 
miracles of the deliverance; and during the very 
time when he is speaking to God on the mountain, 
the people give themselves up to abominable idolatry. 
Who does not see that Moses is set forth by Stephen 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 61 


as a type of Messiah? That his hearers may by no 
possibility mistake, he calls him a redeemer,* and 
suddenly in the midst of his narrative, as if to illumi- 
nate the whole, he brings in the prophecy in Deuter- 
onomy of the prophet like unto Moses, whom the 
ord ‘should raise. np:- Acts:-v, 37. . Stephen .thus 
transforms his apology into a bold accusation. He 
shows that if Moses has been blasphemed it has been 
not by him, but rather by the forefathers of his ac- 
cusers and by those very accusers themselves, whe 
have ‘treated Jesus Christ as their fathers treated his 
precursor. Stephen sums up in a few words the 
later period of the history of his nation. He refers 
to the building of the temple, without a word of the 
condemnation with which he had been charged; on 
the contrary, he sees in it a striking proof of the 
favor of God toward the family of David. Acts vii, 
46-50. He protests only against the gross material- 
ism which has made this temple the national idol: 
“God dwelleth not,’ he simply reminds them, “in 
temples made with hands.” The history of the 
Prophets furnishes him with new proofs of the unbe- 
lief of his nation. These heralds of Christ were 
treated as Christ himself had been treated. At this 
thought, the indignation long repressed seems to 
burst in a torrent from his heart, and he concludes 
his whole address with this tremendous apostrophe : 
“Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and 
ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your 
fathers did, so do ye.” + 
* Λυτρωτὴν, Acts vii, 35. 


+ The address of Stephen shows great freedom in the manner of 
quoting the Old Testament.. Thus, in verse 14, he says that the 


62 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Such is the apology of Stephen—so simple, so 
noble ; it contains, in an historic form, ideas the most 
fresh and sublime, and reveals an important develop- 
ment of Christian thought. And, strange to say, 
we owe this development to a man who is not an 
Apostle, and who appears in this crisis superior to the 
twelve. We have in this fact an irrefragable proof 
that nothing likea monopoly of revelation was enjoyed 
by the Apostles. 

Fiercely interrupted by the rage of his hearers, 
Stephen is dragged out of the assembly. The fury 
of the Jews is so great that all the forms of justice are 
set aside ; he is, in the wild commotion, stoned with- 
out a trial. His death is truly sublime.* His coun- 
tenance beams with a heavenly light. It is the pure 
radiance of love. A vision of glory is granted him ; 
he dies while breathing pardon on his murderers. His 
last prayer is addressed distinctly to Jesus Christ, 
and, by his final homage, he renders dying testimony 
to his divinity. It was fitting that this great truth 
should be thus proclaimed by the first of the martyrs 
—by the man who most fully comprehended the su- 
periority of the new covenant over the old ; for Chris- 
tianity rises above Judaism just in proportion to the 


family of Jacob consisted of seventy-five persons, while, according to 
Genesis xlvi, 27, it numbered only seventy. In verse 16 he says that 
Abraham bought the sepulcher at Sychem for a sum of money. But, 
according to Genesis, it was Jacob who did so. Gen. xxxiii, 19. See 
a beautiful paraphrase in Thiersch of the speech of Stephen. The 
typical point of view is, however, there given with exaggeration. 

* His death is said to have taken place in the year 36, the time of 
the deposition of Pilate. Such a murder can be more readily under- 
stood in an interim of authority ; but the sudden excitement of a mob 
is never stayed by scruples as to legality. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 63 


recognition of the divinity of Christ. There was 
great lamentation over Stephen. The pious men 
who carried him to his burial with tender respect 
simply obeyed one of the truest impulses of the 
human heart. And yet that very sentiment, in an 
exaggerated form, became subsequently the parent 
of wretched superstitions, and found its ultimate ex- 
pression in the adoration of the dust of the martyrs. 

The death of Stephen, like that of all the confess- 
ors, set to his testimony a truly sacred seal, and 
gave it redoubled power. It not only served Chris- 
tianity in a general manner, but specially advanced 
that truth for which he had given his life. His cause 
was gained. The glorious thought which had in- 
flamed his zeal'was to be caught by a man who stood 
as yet among the enemies of the Church, but whom 
God designed to use for the casting down, with a 
strong hand, of the barrier between Judaism and the 
Gentile world. This was that young man whom the 
sacred writer points out to us, holding the garments 
of them that stoned Stephen. Saul of Tarsus had 
heard Stephen’s defense with the indignation of a 
Pharisee of the Pharisees, but in the midst of his 
anger God had darted into his soul one of those 
piercing goads which cannot long be resisted. The 
memory of that day never faded from his mind. The 
redoubling of his persecuting zeal denotes the dis- 
quiet of his spirit. Of this we shall find further 
proof when we trace the story of his conversion. 
“Tf Stephen had not prayed,” beautifully says Augus- 
tine, “the Church had not had Paul.” * 


* «© Si Stephanus non orasset, Ecclesia Paulum non haberet.” St. 
August., ‘Sermo’? XCIV. 


64 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


The persecution of which Saul of Tarsus was the 
instigator is an indication of the sudden change in 
the disposition of the Pharisees toward the Church. 
This sect, at first favorably disposed, took little part 
in the first persecution: now it takes the initiative 
in measures of violence, and soon surpasses the Sad- 
ducees in cruelty. In truth, the religious parties 
which lay their crimes to the charge of God, and pre- 
tend to avenge the cause of Heaven, are the most 
dangerous of all, because they hold themselves bound 
to no moderation in their transports of rage. The 
first result of this second persecution was the dis- 
persion of the Christians. They were to learn more 
than one lesson in this exile. Salutary experience 
was to give confirmation to the words of Stephen, and 
the successes gained by the Church on foreign soil 
were to raise it above the exclusiveness of Judaism. 


S II. The Dispersion of the Christians. The Gospel 
271 Samaria. Simon Magus. Philip and the Eunuch. 


Persecution, by scattering the Christians, widened 
at once the field of their missionary activity and the 
range of their ideas. They went forth to encounter, 
for the first time, paganism—the eclectic paganism 
of that age, which united in its vague beliefs the East 
and the West. This new adversary awaited them in 
one of the cities of Samaria, to which certain of their 
number had directed their steps. Samaria was not, 
indeed, actually a pagan country. Its inhabitants 
were the descendants of that mixed population, formed 
of the remnant of the ten tribes and of a colony of 
foreigners, transplanted by the order of Salmanasar.* 


* 2 Kings xvii, 24. Josephus, ‘* Antiq.,”” Book XI, c. viii, 6. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 65 


When the Jews returned from Babylon, the Samari- 
tans sought to take part in the rebuilding of the 
temple. Ezraiv,1,2. They were repelled with indigna- 
tien. They then resolved to rear a temple to Jehovah 
on the Mount Gerizim.* The Samaritans shared, like 
the Jews, in the consequences of the revolutions in 
Asia Minor. Their temple was destroyed by John 
Hyrcanus.— But Mount Gerizim continued still to 
be to them a holy place.£ They ultimately fell under 
the dominion of the Romans, and underwent the same 
political fluctuations as their neighbors. Many causes 
nurtured the hatred between the two neighboring 
nations. The Samaritans were wont to repudiate 
any community of origin with the Jews when they 
found it their interest to do so. “The Samaritans,” 
says the historian Josephus, “deny their Hebrew 
origin when the Jews are in distress, but as soon as 
any prosperity comes to them, they are eager to 
appeal to their common ancestry in Joseph and 
Manasseh.” || It is easy to understand what a leaven 
of bitterness such conduct would prove in the hearts 
of the Jews. These could not forget that, to pur- 
chase the favor of Antiochus Epiphanes in a time of 
pressing peril, the Samaritans had declared that their 
temple was dedicated to the deities of Greece, and that 
they themselves practiced Greek rites.§ They had, 


ἘΠ ΟΕ τος ““Antiq.,” Χ ΤΙ :¢: i, τ: 

ΠΣ] ΟΞερ τ ξ *SAntig:,”” XIII, c. ix. 

i) OSepnuUs,.-2eRLIGe,” AFL ES c. xiv, 1. 

|| Εἰσὶ yap τοιοῦτοι τὴν φύσιν, ev μέν ταῖς συμφοραῖς ὄντας τοὺς 
Ιουδᾶιους ἀρνοῦνται συγγενεῖς ἔχειν. Josephus, “ Antiq.,’? Book XI, 
c. vi. 

§ Τοῖς ἑλληνικοῖς ἔθεσιν αἱροῦνται, χρώμενοι ζῇν. Josephus, ‘* An- 
εἰ Book XII, c. v, 5. 


~ 


9 


66 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


however, in truth remained faithful to monotheism. 
As the great prophetic period had commenced just 
at the time of their separation from the Jews, they 
had been utter strangers to the whole of that mag- 
nificent development of the old covenant. They 
acknowledged the Pentateuch only, and, with the ex- 
ception of a small minority, denied the resurrection 
of the dead.* It appears, also, from Epiphanes, that 
the mysticism of the Essenes found some adherents 
among them.t The Samaritans shared in some 
measure in the Jewish expectation of Messiah, (John iv, 
25,) but their Messianic hopes were even more tainted 
with materialism than were those of the Jews, at least 
if we give credit to the few Samaritans who still live 
among the ruins of their country, and who appear to 
have faithfully kept the ancient traditions. Accord- 
ing to them, Messiah is to reign over all nations, to 
restore the holy law, to rebuild the temple on Gerizim, 
and to insure the universal triumph of Moses.t The 
facility with which the magician Simon fascinated the 
whole Samaritan people with his sorceries is another 
proof of the earthly nature of their hopes. 

We need not here show, (for we have done so else- 
where,) that from the stand-point of natural religion, 
the magician was the sole Messiah, the only deliverer 
that could be looked for. For those who have deified 
nature, the last resource must be her hidden power ; 
pagan dualism, not rising to the conception of moral 
evil, by conjuring away the effects of the noxious pow- 


* “ Prophetis non credunt Samaritz, resurrectionem mortuorum 
negant.”” (Origen, ‘‘In Numeros,” Homily XXV, 1.) 

+ Epiphan., “ Heres,” § 16. 

1 ‘Die Samariter. Ein Beitrag,” by Joseph Grimm, 1854, p. 99. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 67 


ers of nature. Magicians had, therefore, an important 
part to play in these times of religious transition and 
aspiration. The predominance of oriental ideas, the 
influence of the Jewish conception of Messiah, all 
combined to increase their ascendency in these lands. 
The Samaritans had already yielded to the influence 
of a false Messiah named Dositheus. The testimo- 
nies of Christian antiquity with regard to this man are 
incomplete and contradictory. According to the 
oldest witness, Origen, Dositheus, a contemporary 
of Jesus Christ, declared himself to be the expected 
Messiah, and even laid claim to the attribute of the 
Son of God.* Τ is quite possible that the impostor 
may have turned to account the impression produced 
by the Saviour’s passing through Samaria. His in- 
fluence appears to have been maintained for some 
time, but within a limited circle.t} Simon gained a 
far wider popularity. Legend has borrowed his 
name, and has invested his history with absurd 
fables. He even becomes a wholly typical character 
in some writings of Judaizing heretics of the second 
century.t Justin Martyr supposes him to have 
come to Rome, and regards him as the founder of a 


* "Edaokev ἑαυτὸν εἶναι, Tov προφητευόμενον χριστὸν. Orig., ‘* Com- 
ment in Johann,” viii, 27. Καὶ avtoc υἷος τοῦ θεοῦ. ““ Contra Cel- 
sus,” vi, 17. 

+ Epiphanes gives us quite another notion. According to him 
(““ Heeres.,’’ 13) Dositheus was a Jew, the founder of the sect of the 
Sadducees, which passed into Samaria after receiving some check in 
Judzea; but he has evidently confounded the Dositheus of Origen 
with the Dositheus of the Talmud. (Grimm, “ Die Samarit.,” 117.) 

t In the ‘‘Clementines”? and the ““ Recognitiones,”’ Simon repre- 
sents heresy i: g>meral, and primarily St. Paul, who to the Ebionites 
was the supreme heretic. 


68 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


new worship, but his assertion is evidently based on 
an historic error.* Many modern theologians have 
concluded from these myths that the whole history 
of Simon was only a tissue of legends. But it con- 
tains positive facts, guarantied by the unanimous 
witness of the Fathers, and confirmed by the re- 
cently-discovered writings of Hippolytus. “ Simon,” 
we read in the “ Philosophoumena,” “ was of Gitton, 
a village of Samaria. He was a skillful magician ; 
he sought to pass for God.” + He had with him a 
woman of dissolute life named Helena whom he 
had found at Tyre, and to whom he allotted a prom- 
inent part in his system.t As to this system—if a 
confused medley of incongruous ideas be worthy of 
such a name—we must distinguish between its orig- 
inal form and the modifications which it underwent 
after Simon became acquainted with Christianity. 
As these modifications, however, touched no essen- 
tial principle, we may fairly seek for its primary idea, 
in the tolerably complete exposition of his doctrines, 
contained in the “ Philosophoumena”’ of Hippolytus. 
We find there valuable fragments of a book, com- 
posed, if not by Simon, by one of his immediate 


*See Justin Martyr, “" Apologia,” edition of 1686, p. 69. Justin 
asserts that in his time the following inscription was to be read at 
Rome: ‘Simoni Deo Sancto.” But it is now admitted that, in- 
stead of Szmoni, the word is Semonz. Semo was the Sabine Her- 
cules worshiped at Rome. 

+ Mayeiac ἔμπειρος Gv θεοποιῆσαι ἑαυτόν ἐπεχείρησε. ““ Philosoph.,”’ 
p. 161, comp. with Justin Martyr, “ Apol.,” p. 69, and Irenzeus, Book 
I,c. xxiii, We see by the testimony of the ‘‘ Fathers,” that Simon of 
Gitton cannot be confounded with Simon of Cyprus, also a magician, . 
of whom Josephus speaks. ‘ Antig.,”? Xie. ὙΝ Ὁ. 

{ ‘* Philosoph.,” 174. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 69 


disciples.* St. Luke tells us that Simon was pro- 
claimed by his followers to be “2.6 great power of 
God.’ + The book to which his name is attached 
gives us the exact meaning of these words. Simon 
recognized a first, hidden, invisible principle, of which 
the world is the eternal manifestation.{ This first 
principle has two modes of manifestation: it reveals 
itself first as an active and spiritual, next as a pas- 
sive and receptive principle. Dualism is thus at the 
outset clearly stated.§ The receptive or passive 
principle deteriorates perpetually, and finally be- 
comes altogether materialized. The courtesan Hel- 
ena was the personification of this principle. The 
mission of Simon the sorcerer was to effect her de- 
liverance, which was to be that of all mankind. He 
pretended, himself, to represent the active and spir- 
itual principle, and thus to incarnate the great power 
of God. This sketch of his doctrine will suffice for 
the present. We shall look at it again under the 
new and complex form which it assumes, when, by 
alliance with Christian ideas, it becomes _heresy.|| 


* Bunsen (‘‘ Hippolytus,” vol. i, 43) proves the authenticity of 
these fragments, which are found in the ‘‘ Philosophoumena,”’ p. 163. 
+ Οὗτός ἔστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη. Acts viii, IO. 

1“ Philosoph.,”’ 163, go. 

8 Ato εἰσὶ παραφυάδες τῶν ὅλων αἰώνων ἀπὸ μιᾶς ῥίζης ἥτις ἐστὶ 
δύναμις, σιγὴ, ἀόρατος ἀκατάληπτος ὧν ἡ μία φαίνεται ἄνωθεν, ἥτις ἐστὶ 
μεγάλη δύναμις, ἄρσην. Ἢ δὲ ἑτέρα, ἐπίνοια μεγάλη θήλεια. ““ Philos.,” 
173, 60. 

| “‘ Philosoph.,” 163, 85. Our exposition of the system of Simon 
differs at once from that of Neander, (‘‘ Pflanzung,” i, 79,) and from 
that of Grimm, (‘‘Samarit.,” p. 156.) The former, who could not 
have any acquaintance with the ‘‘ Philosophoumena,”’ has too much 
identified that which Simon called ‘‘the great power of God,”’ with 
the Word of Philo. The ideas of the magician are much more inco- 
herent than those of the Alexandrine Gnostic. The system of ema- 


70 > EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


We know enough of it to recognize in it the old 
Phoenician dualism, and the earliest features of Gnos- 
tic dualism. It contains the first rough, imperfect 
outline of the subtle doctrines which were destined to 
cause so much evil to the Church. The absurdity of 
the part which Simon allots to himself, the great in- 
decorousness of that which he assigns to a courtesan, 
are less astonishing when we remember the country 
in which his strange system was conceived. ‘This 
country was situated on the borders of that Phrygia 
which gave birth to the most infamous fables of pa- 
ganism. Simon may be considered as pre-eminently 
the false Messiah. He held a doctrine of perdition, 
but this perdition was not the result of sin, since it 
was, like matter, eternal and fatal. Nor had salva- 
tion in his system any moral character ; it consisted 


nation is far from being clearly expressed by him. On the other hand, 
we cannot share Grimm’s opinion that Simon asserted himself to be 
the supreme and absolute deity. Grimm dwells, in the first place, on 
the testimony of Justin, who says that the Samaritans regarded him 
as the first god, ὥς τὸν πρῶτον θέον, (see Hippolytus, ‘‘ Phil.,” p. 
161,) and on that of Irenzeus, who affirms that Simon was worshiped 
under the name of Jupiter, (‘‘ Hzeres.,” i, 23.) But these testimonies 
simply signify that Simon declared himself to be the highest mani- 
festation of the unknown God. We know that in the Greek The- 
ogony Jupiter is not the first of the gods in date; he comes forth 
from Saturn, the ancient and primitive deity. Simon pretended to 
incarnate the first principle emerged from the potential fire, without 
likening himself to the potential fire itself. The passage in the 
“* Philosophoumena,”” which we have already quoted, (‘ Phil.,”  p. 
176, 60,) dispels all doubts in this respect. The “great power of 
God” is there clearly set forth as the male principle sprung from the 
eternal root of being. No doubt, in the pantheistic point of view, 
the eternal and potential principle is found in its manifestations. 
But the manifestation of a principle cannot be absolutely identified 
with the principle itself. There is between them a sort of hierarchy 
and subordination. 


BOOK E-—FEIRSE. €ENITURY, 71 


only in subtle artifices, and the pretended Saviour 
was nothing but a magician. Thus, by diabolic art, 
the desire after redemption, so keenly alive at this 
period, was miserably cheated. Simon acquired a 
very great influence over the Samaritan people. He 
in a manner bewitched them. 

It might be foreseen that the same vague aspira- 
tion which impelled the multitude eagerly to follow 
Simon, would make it attentive to the preaching of 
the Gospel. Such was the actual result when Philip, | 
driven from Jerusalem by the persecution, preached 
Christ to the Samaritans, and confirmed his word 
by signs and wonders ; the people at once forsook 
the impostor, and thronged to hear the word of 
truth. 

Simon, like a cunning tactician, followed the multi- 
tude, in the hope of regaining his authority. He 
was baptized with his former adherents. The Apos- 
tles, who had remained at Jerusalem, hearing of the 
success of Philip’s preaching, sent two of their num- 
ber into this new and fruitful field of labor. They 
chose Peter and John, who up to this time had dis- 
played the greatest activity in the primitive Church. 
This decision was most wise: Philip had very prob- — 
ably suggested it in his letters. The work was too 
wide and important for his unaided efforts ; it was 
natural that those who had shown the greatest mis- 
sionary zeal should come to his assistance. Peter 
and John, as soon as they arrive in Samaria, witness, 
in answer to their prayer, a descent of the Holy 
Ghost upon the Samaritan neophytes. The defend- 
ers of the hierarchy magnify this fact ; but in order 
to raise it to the height of a principle and general 


72 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


rule, it is needful to show that during the whole 
apostolic period the Holy Ghost never chose any 
other medium than the Apostles or their immediate 
delegates. Now it is certain that the Holy Spirit 
was often given to the new converts without their 
concurrence.* The wind bloweth where it listeth, 
and the grace of God is not confined to any official 
channel. If the Holy Spirit was not given to the 
Samaritans until after the arrival of Peter and John, 
we hold, with Neander, that the cause must have 
been a purely moral one. Their preaching rapidly 
developed the germ of the new life in the neophytes 
of Sychar, who had possibly at first embraced Chris- 
tianity only in outward form. It is surely more hon- 
orable to the Apostles to suppose the results to have 
been wrought by the living power of their words, 
than by any outward and material act—the trans- 
mission of some mysterious, magnetic fluid from 
their persons. Such theories are truly derogatory, 
and lower the Apostles to the rank of the magicians, 
whose power they were come to destroy. 

Simon betrayed in these circumstances the secret 
of his heart. By offering to buy the gift of God, he 
showed that he, like so many since his day, had con- 
founded grace with magic; and it is just that the 
abominable traffic in holy things should bear his 
name. We see him for one moment trembling under 


*Ts it not evident that the Ethiopian eunuch baptized by Philip 
ceceived the Holy Ghost in the desert ? The conversion of St. Paul 
was completed at Damascus, and it was Ananias who conferred the 
baptism upon him with the laying on of his hands, after the scales 
were fallen from his eyes, in token of the inward illumination which 
could be the work only of the Holy Spirit. Acts ix, 18. 


BOOK 1.-Ξ ΕἸΚΒΞΈ CENTURY. 73 


the tremendous rebuke of the Apostle. But history 
shows us that his repentance had no root. He was 
the founder of the first heresy. Legend says that 
he came to Rome, and there ignominiously died. It 
is possible that in the great confluence of East and 
West he may have been found in that capital of the 
world where all creeds met, and all impostors left 
their track. But this sojourn of Simon at Rome is 
not verified by any authentic document. In him 
Christianity encountered the father of Gnosticism 
and of heresy. The numerous legends which cling 
around his name reveal the terror he inspired.* 

The foundation of the Christian Church in Sama- 
ria had a very happy effect upon the growth and ex- 
pansion of Christian thought. Not only did the Jews 
cherish the strongest antipathy to the Samaritans, 
but they had raised a barrier of legal prescriptions of 
extreme severity between themselves and their hated 
neighbors. The Gospels give us numerous proofs of 
this fact. The most injurious name which the ene- 
mies of Christ can find for him is that of a Samar- 
itan. John viii, 48. The woman of Sychar is amazed 
that a Jew will dare to converse with her. John de- 
clares positively that the Jews have no dealings with 
the Samaritans. John iv, 9. The Talmud shows 
that it is forbidden for an Israelite to break bread 
with a Samaritan: “ He who takes the bread of a 

*In the “‘ Act. Pauli et Petri,’? Simon dies, the victim of a rash 
challenge. He had promised to rise to heaven. St. Peter, with a 
word, made him fall to the earth crushed before the eyes of Nero. 
(Act. Pauli et Petri,” 33, Tischendorf edit.) According to the 
‘¢ Philosophoumena,”? he had himself shut up in a tomb at Rome, 


declaring that he would rise again the third day. ‘‘ But,” adds Hip- 
polytus, ‘‘he remains there until now.” ‘‘ Philosoph.,” p. 176. 


74 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Samaritan is like him who eats the flesh of swine. 
No Israelite may receive a Samaritan as a proselyte ; 
this accursed people shall have no part in the resur- 
rection of the dead.’* Thus the Apostles, when 
they went to preach the Gospel in Samaria, must 
needs have risen above the most inveterate preju- 
dices of their nation. It was a great step toward 
realizing the true breadth of Christianity. The 
preaching addressed to the Samaritans was to lead 
them, by a transition of the Saviour’s own appoint- 
ing, to carry the Gospel throughout the whole world. 
The primitive Church thus entered upon the path 
opened by Stephen, and his martyrdom bore its 
first-fruits. 

Peter and John return to Jerusalem, while the 
Deacon Philip is called, by a new manifestation of the 
will of God, yet further to extend the field of Christian 
missions. It is not a Samaritan, but a pagan, whom 
he next instructs in the truth. In crossing the desert 
which leads to Gaza, a city of the ancient Philistines, 
he meets with a stranger, who, as he journeys, is 
reading in his chariot a portion of the Scriptures. 
He was an Ethiopian eunuch, a great dignitary of the 
court of Meroé, treasurer of the Queen.{ This man, 
a pagan by birth, had taken a long journey to worship 
the true God in the temple at Jerusalem.t What- 
ever might have been his religious character, he could 
never, as a eunuch, have passed the door of the 

* Grimm, ‘* Die Samarit.,”’ pp. 109, 110. 

+ According to Pliny, the name of Candace was a dynastic name. 
(°° Ehist. Nati,’ va,"'35-) 

¢ Eusebius, ““H. E.,” ii, 1. The fact that he was reading the 


Scriptures cannot prove, as Olshausen asserts, that he was a Jew, for 
he might easily have them in the Greek version, then widely diffused. 


BOOK I--——FIRST ‘CENTURY. 75 


congregation of the people of God. Deut. xxiii, 1. 
He was, perhaps, only a proselyte of the gate. But 
his soul, full of holy aspiration, was already open to 
the Gospel. He was reading that sublime chapter, 
{saiah liii, in which the sufferings of Messiah are 
depicted in traits so touching and so true. Philip, 
by a few words of explanation, removes all his doubts, 
and carries conviction home to his heart. He eagerly 
embraces the truth. He becomes without delay a 
disciple of Jesus Christ, and without any considera- 
tion of Jewish practice, he receives baptism. “He 
found more,” eloquently says Jerome, “in the desert 
fountain of the Church than in the gilded temple of 
the synagogue.’* This scene, which was enacted 
far from human eyes in the depths of the desert soli- 
tude, is inimitably beautiful. It reveals the dispensa- 
tion by which God seeks out in all places the soul 
which is seeking him, and leads his Church into full 
liberty by the exercise of his love. f 


S III. Foundation of the Church at Antioch, and 
Conversion of the Centurion Cornelius. 


The dispersion of the Christians not only carried 
the Gospel into Samaria, but into the surrounding 
countries. Its seeds were scattered in many cities. 
Damascus, so important both from its geographical 
position and from its history, contained within its 


* «© Plus in deserto fonte Ecclesize reperuit quam in aurato synagogze 
templo.” (St. Jerome, ‘* Eph.,” ciii.) 

+ The old historians of the Church (Eusebius, ‘‘H. E.,” ii, 1) 
attribute to the converted eunuch a great share in the mission carried 
on in his country. Ethiopia was not, however, won to the Church 
till the fourth century, by the preaching of Frumentius and Edesius. 
Still, it is possible the efforts of the eunuch may not have been fruitless, 


76 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


walls a strong Jewish colony. It is not surprising 
that Christianity should have there early gathered a 
large number of adherents, and that its progress 
should have alarmed the Sanhedrim. Acts 1x, 2. The 
new religion had also disciples at Lydda and Joppa, 
maritime towns of Phoenicia. Acts ix, 35,36. Some 
unknown Christians had even carried it into the Isle of 
Cyprus, so famous for its worship of Venus ; they had 
thus planted the religion of holiness in one of the most 
infamous hot-beds of pagan corruption. Acts xi, 19. 
But in all these different places the new faith had 
been cradled in the synagogue. It had not yet come 
into direct contact with the pagan world; its first 
step in this direction was taken at Samaria, the second 
was at Antioch. The foundation of the Church of 
that city is a leading event, the consequences of 
which to the early Church were incalculable. An- 
tioch, the ancient residence of the Kings of Syria, 
built on the banks of the river Orontes, in a fertile 
plain, had become one of the capitals of pagan civili- 
zation, one of the great centers where East and West 
mingled their brilliant and refined culture. The 
beauty of its buildings, its large population, its wide 
commerce, its artistic advancement and its wealth, 
made it, according to Josephus, the third city in the 
empire.* It was, on the testimony of Cicero, a city 
where men of cultivation abounded and where the 
liberal arts flourished.t The Jews had there, as in 
all other places, founded a colony, but the Christian 
mission did not confine itself within the bounds of 
* Josephus, ‘‘ Bell. Judaic,” Book III, c. xxiv. 


t ‘*Celeber quondam urbs et copiosa, atque eruditissimis hominibus 
liberalissimisque studiis affluens.” Cicero “ Pro. Arch. Poeta,” c. iti. 


BOOK: ΞΡ ΕΘ CENTURY. 7 


the synagogue. It was undertaken by some of those 
Hellenist Jews who had been converted on the day 
of Pentecost. The Gospel was preached at Antioch 
by disciples from Cyprus and from Cyrene, (Acts xi, 
19, 20; comp. Acts 11, 10,) who belonged to the most 
liberal section of the Church at Jerusalem, and who had 
probably been especially attached to Stephen. The 
direct inheritors of the great thought which had ani- 
mated the proto-martyr, they perceived, as he had done, 
that the new covenant rested upon a wider basis than 
the old. Thus they went at once to the heathen. 
“They spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord 
_ Jesus.” Acts xi, 20. These were soon converted in 

large numbers, and the first Church outside of Judaism 
was founded.- Thus the world’s gates were opened to 
the Christian mission—those gates which, until then, 
Jewish prejudice had kept closed. From this day 
the new religion takes its true position ; it invites 
Hellenism as freely as Judaism, the West no less 
than the East, and it rises for the first time to the 
comprehension of those words of the Master, “ The 
field is the world.” On the other hand, the founda- 
tion of the Church at Antioch foreshadows the trans- 
formation, or rather the development, of the primitive 
apostolate. It was founded without the assistance 
of the twelve Apostles. The opinion that Peter was 
the first Bishop of Antioch has no foundation,* and 


* The tradition which attributes to Peter the foundation and goy- 
ernment of the Church at Antioch is of very ancient date. Eusebius 
records it, (‘‘ H. E.,” ii, 36,) and St. Jerome also (‘ De viris illustri- 
bus, 1;) and Origen confirmed it in these words: ‘‘ Ignatium dico 
episcopum Antiochiz post Petrum secundum.” (‘‘In Luc.,’? Homily 
VI, vol. iii.) The ‘* Liber Pontificalis”’ only copies the ‘‘ Fathers,” as 
does Baronius, (‘‘ Annals,” i, 245,) and with him all the Catholic 


78 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


must be ascribed to episcopal preconceptions. Ac- 
cording to St. Luke, the Church at Antioch owed its 
origin to the Hellenist Jews of Cyprus and Cyrene; 
the Church at Jerusalem did not send an Apostle to 
it, but a simple Evangelist, Barnabas. God designed 
thus to show that the apostolate of the twelve was 
not the only and necessary channel of his grace, but 
that Christian activity, putting forth its strength and 
evidencing its lawfulness by great and splendid re- 
sults, received in those very results divine sanction. 
This new apostolate is conferred directly by the Holy 
Spirit, and is independent of any special institution. 
Stephen had already been invested with it; St. Paul 
was soon to unite in one person all its gifts, and to 
claim all its privileges ; the Church was destined to 
see it perpetuated from age to age, less richly endowed, 
but still powerful to reform and to renew.* 

The Church of Antioch was early distinguished 
for the abundance of its extraordinary gifts. It had 
numerous prophets. The new religion, released from 
the restraints of Judaism, there expanded in all its 
freedom and beauty. At Antioch it first became 
known by its true name. This was doubtless given 


writers, (Lenain de Tillemont, ‘‘ Mémoires,” i, p. 167.) But the 
silence of the writer of the Acts invalidates all these witnesses. We 
shall show presently that the episcopate did not exist at this period. 
The origin of the legend is easily explicable. Episcopal notions soon 
necessitated the retrospective regularization of the Church at Antioch. 
From a hierarchical point of view it was impossible to adhere to the 
narrative in the Acts, which attributed the foundation of that Church 
to mere Evangelists. It was known that Peter had at the same period 
traveled into the neighboring countries. What more natural than to 
make him the first Bishop of Antioch ? 

* See Baumgarten, ‘‘ Die Apost. Kirche von Jerusalem bis Rom.,” 
1, rORy. 


BO ——FIRST CENTURY. 79 


it by the multitude, who witnessed its development 
and progress. The name Cristian showed the dawn- 
ing comprehension that the Church was not simply 
a Jewish sect. No one at Jerusalem, seeing the dis- 
ciples in the temple, had thought of seeking for them 
anew name. This new name revealed the greatness 
of the revolution just wrought. It is important to 
observe that the earliest Church called out of the 
midst of paganism was the first to bear it. It was 
also from Antioch, as we shall see, that Paul set forth 
on his missionary journeys. Antioch was, in a man- 
ner, the Jerusalem of the Gentile world. 

At this very time the Apostle Peter was led, by a 
miraculous dispensation of God, to shake off the yoke 
of Jewish exclusiveness. Notwithstanding the suc- 
cess of his mission in Samaria, he had not abjured 
his old notions; he still thought that all the pre- 
scriptions of the Mosaic law were in force. It was 
of the utmost importance that the Apostle whose 
activity and influence were paramount at this period, 
should be won over to the cause of a world-wide 
Christianity. God brought about this result in a 
most remarkable manner, by the coincident illumi- 
nation of a special revelation and of personal ex- 
perience. There lived at this time in the town of 
Czesarea a Roman centurion named Cornelius, be- 
longing to the Italian cohort, which maintained in 
those countries the authority of Rome. A heathen 
by birth, but conscious, like so many of his contem- 
poraries, of unsatisfied religious needs, Cornelius had, 
from his first contact with the synagogue, forsaken 
the worship of false gods, and embraced the Jewish 
faith. Acts x, 1. But he had not found even in it 


80 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


satisfaction of heart. His upright and pious soul 
sought and required a more complete response to its 
cravings. It is probable that Cornelius may have 
already heard of the new religion and of St. Peter, 
for the angel who appears to him merely mentions 
the name of the Apostle, and Cornelius understands 
without further explanation. The vagte rumor of 
Christianity which had reached him had perhaps 
rendered his prayers more fervent. However this 
may be, as he was in prayer, he suddenly saw ina 
vision an angel of God, who told him that his prayers 
were heard, and bade him send for the Apostle Peter. 
Acts x, 3-8. At the same moment Peter, who was 
at Joppa, received a revelation which was to prepare 
him to accede to the request of Cornelius. 

This revelation seems, at the first glance, to have 
reference only to the distinction between clean and 
unclean animals. Acts x,10-17. But all the institu- 
tions of Judaism were closely connected. The dis- 
tinction between animals rested on the same principle 
as the distinction between days, places, and men. 
Till redemption had been wrought out, the original 
taint infected every thing in a world under the curse. 
It was only by exception that certain men, certain 
days, certain fruits of the ground, certain animals, 
were raised in part above the universal defilement. 
The Jewish people was the only fraction of human- 
ity which was not profane ; the distinction between 
the clean and unclean animals symbolized, therefore, 
one far more important, namely, the distinction be- 
tween men. When Peter says, “I have never eaten 
any thing common or unclean,” he speaks as a Jew; 
he is pointing to the legal distinction between men 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. SI 


and things. The reply which he receives shows him 
the meaning of the new covenant. God, by the 
blood of redemption, has in truth purified all that 
was defiled. The distinction between a holy people 
and an unholy race is done away, like that between 
animals clean and unclean; and thus Peter may and 
must go and preach the Gospel to Cornelius the 
Roman. 

We know what were the results of his preaching. 
The miracle of Pentecost was wrought afresh on 
these converts from heathenism, and Peter ex- 
claimed, “Can any man forbid water, that these 
should. not be baptized, which have received the 
Holy Ghost as well as we? Acts x, 47. In these 
words he boldly proclaimed Christianity to be wide 
as the world. The death of Stephen was bearing its 
fruits, and a career, wide as the world, was opening 
to apostolic missions. Paul had only to go forth into 
- it. Thus the Church made progress, step by step, 
in its path of light, guided by the Holy Spirit, and 
taught by the lessons of experience. Revelation 
seemed at the same moment to come down from 
heaven, and to spring up in human hearts; so true 
is it that the Spirit of God, ever secure of attaining 
its ends without the aid of magic, never consents to 
do violence to that noblest of instruments, human 
freedom. But though gained at Antioch and at 
Ceesarea, the cause of Gentile Christianity was not 
yet triumphant at Jerusalem. We must now follow 
the discussion which arose on the conversion of the 
Centurion Cornelius.* 


* Difficulties have been raised about the liberal action of Peter at 
Czesarea and the timidity subsequently shown by him at Antioch, 


82 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Εν ε The Church at Ferusalem at the time of the 
᾿ First Mission beyond Fudea. 


The Christians who had remained at Jerusalem 
had experienced no change in their religious convic- 
tions. They had taken no part in the missionary 
work in Samaria, Antioch, and Czsarea. Living in 
the center of Judaism, in the immediate. neighbor- 
hood of the temple, where they daily offered the sac- 
rifices commanded by the law, it would cost them 
much to shake off their national prejudices. Thus 
they learned with astonishment that Peter had en- 
tered the house of a Gentile, had eaten with him, 
and treated him asa brother. They reproached him 
sharply. ‘“ Thou wentest in,” they said, “unto men 
uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” Acts x1, 3. 
In other words: “hou hast trampled under foot 
the most sacred prescriptions of the law; thou 
hast denied the religion of thy fathers, which, as a 
fundamental principle, commands absolute separa- 
tion from strangers.” Peter replied to the charge 
by an account of the conversion of Cornelius and of 
the foregoing revelations, setting before his brethren 
the same effectual demonstration which God had 
used to convince him, and which is the sovereign 
logic of One whose word gives its own translation in 
marvelous and undeniable miracles. What answer 
could there be to such arguments, powerfully summed 
up in the words, “ Forasmuch then as God gave 
them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on 


when he was reproved by St. Paul. From this contradiction it has 
been attempted to draw arguments against the authenticity of the 


narrative. Surely this is to lose sight of the inconsistency so charac- 
teristic of all human actions. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. ; 83 


the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could 
withstand God-?’* Acts xis:f7. «Fhe Christians.-at 
Jerusalem were convinced. It must not be supposed, 
however, that the question was finally settled, and all 
dissent made impossible. We must ever remember 
the instability of the human mind, its vacillations 
and inconsistencies. First impressions rapidly wear 
off, and others come in their stead. The sacred 
story, by preserving the trace of these fluctuations of 
opinion in the primitive Church, gives a strong proof 
of its historical truthfulness. Let us further observe 
that the admission of Gentiles into the Church did 
not necessarily involve the complete abrogation of all 
distinctions of nationality under the new law. It 
was necessary to know if circumcision was or was 
not obligatory on all the new converts. This was 
the point of the question, and it was not yet ripe for 
solution. The acute dialectics of Paul, the broad 
discussions of the Council at Jerusalem, and the 
ardent polemics of the succeeding period, were all 
needed before its final decision. 

The simple machinery of the primitive Church had 
just been completed at Jerusalem. A new office had 
been created—that of elders. Acts xi, 30. It is of 
great moment to us to determine exactly its origin 
and its functions ; only by this means can we judge 
fairly the pretensions of the various ecclesiastical 
systems. The office of elder was not without prece- 
dent. We find it in those numerous synagogues in 
which the Jews, distant from Jerusalem, met on the 
Sabbath to read the Scriptures. We have elsewhere 
spoken of the simple and democratic constitution of 
the synagogues. Each one was governed by a sort 


84 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN - CHURCH. 


of senate or council, whose authority was much like 
that of the judges appointed in each town on the 
conquest of the promised land. Deut. xvi, 18. The 
functions of this council were clearly defined. It 
was to regulate authoritatively all matters relating to 
worship, and was not restricted to simply administra- 
tive measures. The reading and explanation of the 
holy books belonged by right toits members. These 
were called “zakanim,’ or elders. This appellation, 
we learn from positive statements, indicated not so 
much maturity of age as of wisdom and intellectual 
merit.* The council of the synagogue had a presi- 
dent, called the ruler of the synagogue, or master, or 
rabbi; his influence was very great wherever the 
council was small, as in towns where there was but 
an insignificant colony of Jews.— But the ruler of the 
synagogue had no peculiar dignity which raised him 
above his colleagues in the hierarchy. He was the 
first among his peers, przmus inter pares. Unques- 
tionable passages prove that the same synagogue 
often had several rulers or presidents.t All the 


ἘΠῚ Nullus est senex nisi qui 5101 acquisivit sapientiam.”’ Vitringa, 
“We Synag.,” L11,.c. 1, p. 616. 

r Δ ΠΡ, i> To. 

1 In Matt. ix, 18, we read of one of the rulers of the synagogue. 
So in Acts xvii, 8, 17, the rulers of the synagogue are mentioned at 
Corinth, where there was only one synagogue. (Vitringa ‘* De Synag. 
Vetere,” pp. 584, 585.) See also Justin Martyr, ‘‘ Dial. cum Trypho,” 
p- 366. Ὁποῖα διδάσκουσιν οἱ Apytovydywyot ὑμῶν μετὰ THY MpocEevyny. 
Traces of this identity of the rulers of the synagogue and the elders 
are met with in the ‘‘Theodosian Code.’”? There we find these 
words: ‘* Neque licentiam habebunt hi qui ab iis majores omnibus 
Archiphericite aut presbyter, forsitan vel magistri, appellantur 
anathematismis hoc prohibere.” Vitringa, ‘‘De Synagog. Vetere,” 
Page 590. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 85 


elders probably occupied the position in turn. Such 
an organization was essentially democratic ; it pre- 
sents no analogy with the Levitical priesthood, or 
the episcopacy of the third century. 

When we read in the Acts of the Apostles, with- 
out further explanation, that the Church of Jerusalem 
appointed for itself elders, it is clear that the office 
in question must be one already known, and the 
name of which would convey distinct ideas. Had it 
been otherwise, thé sacred historian would have used 
a new word to designate an entirely new institution ; 
he certainly would not have connected the sacerdotal 
hierarchy in the Church with the democratic rule of 
the synagogue, when it would have been so easy to 
borrow from the Jewish priesthood its honorable 
titles. To suppose, as do the advocates of hie- 
rarchical theories, that the first elders were proba- 
bly the first converted priests, who received a fresh 
ordination from the hands of the Apostles, is to 
build the whole sacerdotal system upon a pure 
hypothesis.* . 

The sacred historian gives no details of the nomina- 
tion of the first elders. We may hence conclude that 
there was no formal institution of the office. The Apos- 
tles were often called away from Jerusalem. The young 
Church, though richly supplied with the gifts of the 
Spirit, could not dispense with some direction in its 
daily progress and in its worship. The wisest step 
was to borrow from the synagogue the institution of 
elders, so admirably adapted to the new dispensation. 
Besides, the seven deacons first appointed had been 
more than deacons. They had taught with power, and 


* Thiersch, work quoted, p. 78. 


$6 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


fulfilled by anticipation the office of elders. Just as 
the diaconate had grown out of the apostolate, so 
the office of elders was in part an offshoot from the 
primitive diaconate, and thus the organization of the 
Church went on perfecting itself by the division of 
labor. The Apostles gave their sanction to the cre- 
ation of the new office, but the narrative contains no 
trace of any solemn institution or special revelation. 
The Church had, in this respect, no other revelation 
to await than that of its own needs. It was not cre- 
ating either a priesthood or a clergy, but simply a 
ministry adapted to the spirit of the new dispensa- 
tion. It was doubtless acting in obedience to its 
guiding inspiration, but no direct intervention of 
God was necessary, as though a new priesthood was 
to be instituted. It is beyond question that the 
elders, like the deacons, were chosen by the whole 
assembly. Their part in the Church at Jerusalem 
cannot be exactly defined: they formed its council ; 
they directed without coercing it ; they read and ex- 
plained the Scriptures, at times when no extraordi- 
nary gifts were manifested. In the second period of 
the apostolic age we shall find their functions as- 
suming more importance. At that stage, also, the 
question of the identity of the bishop and the elder 
will come before us for solution. At Jerusalem, as 
in all the Churches of Jewish origin, elders alone 
were known. The name bishop appears only in the 
Churches of Greek origin. 

Side by side with the elders we find the prophets. 
The gift of prophecy was distinguished from the 
other operations of the Spirit by its sudden and 
powerful character. The prophets of the primitive 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 87 


Church were not called only to communicate to the 
Church revelations as to the future, such as those 
put into the mouth of Agabus. Acts xi, 28. Like 
the prophets of the Old Testament, they addressed 
themselves to the hearts and consciences of their 
hearers ; the,prophetic character manifested itself in 
the remarkable efficacy of their words. Barnabas, 
placed among the prophets, had been surnamed 
“ The Son of Consolation.’ Edifying and consoling 
sermons were thus accounted as prophecies when 
they were accompanied with peculiar power.* 

A short time after the return of Peter to Jerusa- 
lem persecution broke out anew, raised this time, not 
- by the priests or the rabbis, but by the King, Herod 
Agrippa; it was employed by him as a means of 
gaining popularity. This prince succeeded in unit- 
ing under his scepter all the countries over which 
his uncle, Herod the Great, had reigned. Having 
crept to the throne by flattery, he kept his seat by 
the same means, servilely pandering to vulgar preju- 
dices. The time was gone when the Church was in 
favor with all the people ; persecution was beginning to 
become popular ; it was to retain this character dur- 
ing three centuries, for nothing is more odious to 
the great mass of men than the law of holiness 
when its requirements are once rightly understood. 
James, the son of Zebedee, was beheaded by the 
King’s commandment. Acts xii, 1, 2, He was the 
first apostle-martyr. His place was not filled up. 
Eusebius relates, on the authority of Clement of 
Alexandria, an incident of his martyrdom, which we 
see no reason to discredit. The false witness, who 


* Neander, ‘‘ Pflanz.,” p. 59. 


88. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


had deposed against James, was touched by the 
sight of the courage and constancy of the Apostle ; 
he avowed himself a Christian, and was visited with 
the same sentence. As he was being led forth with 
James to death, he asked his forgiveness. The 
Apostle looked at him for some moments, then em- 
bracing him, said, “ Peace be with thee.” Both per- 
ished together by the sword.* 

Herod was anxious next to strike a blow at the 
Apostle who had most powerfully drawn upon him- 
self the attention of the people, and had thus enkin- 
dled the most bitter hatred. He caused Peter to be 
thrown into prison and condemned to speedy death. 
The alarmed disciples gathered in the house of Mary, 
the mother of Mark, to entreat help from God in this 
terrible crisis. Threatened with a blow which would 
overturn one of the pillars of the Church, they lift 
up earnest prayers to Heaven. Suddenly Peter him- 
self, delivered by a miracle, knocks at the door of 
the house, and comes to teach them the omnipotence 
of prayer, which they were yet slow to believe, as 
their incredulity of his presence proves. Soon after 
Herod died, smitten with righteous judgment from 
God. He had gone to Casarea to decide some dif- 
ferences with the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon, and 
to celebrate games in honor of the recovery of Clau- 
dius. He was received with the utmost enthusiasm. 
Appearing on the second day of the games arrayed 
in a silver tunic, on which the rays of the early 
morning shed a dazzling brightness, he excited uni- 
versal admiration, and his flatterers even carried 


ἧς ᾽ wR , ΄ ν ΄ ἧς. Ξ Ν ΄ ΄ 
Ο δὲ ὀλίγον σκεψάμενος, εἰρήνη σοὶ εἶπε, καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν. 
Eusebius, ‘ Hist. Eccl.,” ii, Ὁ. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 89 


their adulation so far as to call him a god. In that 
very moment he was smitten with a loathsome dis- 
ease ; eaten of worms, he died, exclaiming, “I, the 
god, am about to die; death has already seized him 
whom men called immortal.” * This event produced 
a deep impression upon the Church, which saw in it 
the direct intervention of God for its protection and 
the chastisement of its enemies. 

According to tradition, St. Peter went to Rome 
after his deliverance, and the excitement caused in 
the Jewish colony by his preaching provoked the 
severe measures taken by Claudius against the 
Jews.f But the presence of Peter in the Council at 
Jerusalem, which took place very shortly after, dis- 
proves this assertion. He probably continued to 
preach the Gospel through all the regions of Asia 
Minor, where his influence was still so great during 
the following period. The defenders of the hie- 
rarchy affirm that after the persecution under Herod 
Agrippa, the Apostles divided the world among them, 
and drew their field of labor by lot.{ To what 

* Kai ὁ κληθεὶς ἀθάνατος ἤδη θανὼν ἀπάγομαι. Josephus, ‘ Antiq.,” 
XIX, c. viii, 2. Josephus states that Herod, at the moment he was 
hailed as a god, saw a screech-owl, which he regarded as an omen of 
evil. 

+ Thiersch’s work quoted, p. 97. Baronius, ‘* Annals,” i, 273. 
Lenain de Tillemont (i, p. 70) places the journey of the Apostle to 
Rome before his imprisonment ; but how then explain the silence of 
the Acts? The testimony of the ‘‘ Fathers” on this point is altogether 
wanting in precision. Eusebius, (ii, 14, 15,) in order to prove the 
presence of Peter at Rome in the time of Claudius, rests upon the 
tradition (proved to be untrue) of his contest with Simon Magus. 
The “ Liber Pontificalis”? declares explicitly that he did not go to 
Rome under Claudius. ‘‘ Hic Petrus ingressus in urbem Romam sub 


Nerone Ceesare.””—‘‘ Liber Pontificalis,”’ p. 11. 
-Leo, “Sermo,” I; Baronius, “‘ Annals,” i, 273. 


Q0 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


lengths will not the desire lead to paint the past 
with the colors of the present, and to substitute for 
the spirituality of the early days an official character 
and the machinery of a hierarchy! It is not possi- 
ble to go further than this in the untrue rendering 
of facts. The opinion which attributes to the Apos- 
tles, at the same time, the compilation of the creed 
which bears their name, is equally without founda- 
tion. The day of Pentecost was not yet far enough 
removed for the reduction of faith to rule. 

The same preconception, and the same disposition 
to transfer the institutions of the third century of the 
Church into the first, have led to an imaginary rec- 
ognition of the episcopate in the entirely moral pre- 
eminence which James,* the Lord’s brother, enjoyed 


* The question whether James, the Lord’s brother, is another than 
James the son of Alpheus, one of the twelve Apostles, is one of the 
most controverted points of criticism. In maintaining the identity 
of the two it is urged that James the son of Alpheus, being clearly 
related to Jesus Christ, through his mother, (John xix, 25,) the name 
of brother may be only an extension of the term of kindred. Gala- 
tians i, 19, is also brought forward, in which James, the brother of 
the Lord, is named among the Apostles. But these reasons appear 
to us insufficient. It is evidently a dogmatic bias which has led to 
the attempt to change the natural signification of the word ἀδελφός. 
As to the designation ‘‘ Apostle,” applied by St. Paul to James, it 
presents no difficulty if the gradual extension of the ideas of the 
apostolate be admitted. The oldest tradition in the Church favors 
our opinion: it represents James as the Lord’s own brother. Euse- 
bius (‘f Hist. Eccl.,” ii, 25) is as explicit as possible upon this point. 
James, in his Epistle, does not describe himself as an Apostle. John 
says that the Lord’s brethren had not believed on him when James, 
the son of Alpheus, was already in the ranks of the Apostles. John 
vil, 5. Finally, in Acts i, 13, 14, the brethren of the Lord are dis- 
tinctly mentioned in addition to the Apostles, consequently they 
were not one and the same. See Winer ‘ Realworterbuch,” vol. i, 
p. 217. 


BOOK ΞΘ CEN FEURY. ΟΙ 


in the Church at Jerusalem. This, however, is ca- 
pable of a most simple explanation. His relation- 
ship to Jesus Christ had an inestimable value in the 
eyes of the first Christians, who felt themselves un- 
der no obligation to repudiate the natural and inde- 
structible feelings of the human heart. The charac- 
ter of James, his piety, and the very form which it 
assumed, all contributed to increase his influence at 
Jerusalem. Profoundly attached to the religion of 
his fathers, he had watched, not without alarm, the 
first contests between Jesus Christ and the repre- 
sentatives of the ancient worship. He had only 
gradually learned to take broader views ; the resur- 
rection of the Saviour seems to have vanquished his 
latent hesitation ; but this hesitation did not spring 
from pride or obstinacy ; his scruples were those of 
a strong but unenlightened piety, which was startled 
by any change introduced into the order established 
by God. The testimony concerning James of an 
old historian of the Church gives us a key to the 
position he filled. ‘“ James, the brother of the Lord,” 
we read in Eusebius, who quotes Hegesippus,* 
“known universally by the surname of ‘The Just,’ 
shared with the Apostles the direction of the Church. 
He was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank 
neither wine nor strong drink, and abstained from 
all meat. ... He alone might enter into the holy 
place ;¢ for his raiment was simply of linen. He 
was accustomed to go into the temple alone. There 
he was found prostrate before God, seeking forgive- 
ness for the sins of the people. His knees were 


* Διαδέχεται τὴν. ἐκκλησίαν. ‘* Hist. Eccl.,” 1, 23. 
ἐ Τούτῳ μόνῳ εξῆν εἰς τὰ ἅγια εἰσιέναι. ““ Hist. Eccl.,” 11, 23. 


ΟΖ EARLY YEARS OF THE CliRISTIAN CHURCH. 


worn like those of a camel, so constantly were they 
bent before God in intercession for the people. Be- 
cause of the excellence of his justice he was sur- 
named ‘The Just,’ the Od/as,* which signifies the 
bulwark of the people, and righteousness.” Those 
who pretend that Christianity was originally very 
little distinguished from Judaism lay much stress on 
this passage.t They forget that Hegesippus is un- 
folding before us the whole life of James from his 
childhood to his death. Set apart as a Nazarite 
from his earliest years, he adhered scrupulously to 
the practices of the sect. But there is nothing in 
the description of Hegesippus to forbid the supposi- 
tion that after his conversion he may have used 
greater freedom, though he, with the whole Church 
of Hebrew origin, continued to observe the institu- 
tions of Moses. His conduct in the Council at Je- 
rusalem, and his Epistle, abundantly prove that, in 
his view, the Christian was not in all points like the 
Nazarite. It is, nevertheless, certain that he reé- 
mained in heart attached to Judaism, and that the 
new religion was primarily, in his eyes, a fulfillment 
of prophecy. His patriotism was wholly unlike that 
of the proud Pharisees of the time, for he was best 
known by his fervent prayers for Jerusalem, and his 
tears over the sins of his people. He was a deter- 
mined enemy of false Judaism, a true child of Abra- 
ham, one of those who yearned for the divine Isaac. 
None was a more forcible preacher of repentance 
than he. James was, in a manner, the John the 

* Ava τὴν ὑπερθυλὴν tic δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ ἐκαλεῖτο Δίκαιος καὶ 
᾿Ωὐλιάς. Ibid. 

1 Schwegler, ‘‘ Nachapost. Zeitalt.,” i, 137. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 93 


Baptist of the apostolic age—a new forerunner mak- 
ing the paths straight for the law of. liberty. He 
was a Jew after God’s own heart, gladly accepting 
the realization of his promises, and thus accom- 
plishing the transition from Judaism to Christianity. 
He is, in fact, the purest type we have of the Israel- 
ite indeed ; he thus truly belongs to the new cove- 
nant, the mission of which is to bring to perfection 
all that existed in germ in the old. The Lord’s broth> 
er repeats, in his life, the Sermon on the Mount; by 
holiness he prepared the way for progress, freeing 
the law of the spirit from the law of the letter, as 
the ripened grain shakes off the enveloping husk. / 

It is not then necessary, in order to explain the 
influence of such a man, to have recourse to apostolic 
investiture.* Respected and beloved by the people, 
who witnessed his zeal in the temple, he exercised 
great moral authority over the Church at. Jerusalem, 
of which he was in truth the representative. Ac- 
cording to Clement of Alexandria, James was like a 
ruler of the synagogue in the Church at Jerusalem— 
that is to say, the first among his equals. It is prob- 
able that he obtained this consideration by the sole 
ascendency of his piety. Hegesippus clearly states 
that he took part in the government of the Church 
at the same time with Peter and John. His right 
was equal to theirs ; and it did not need for its exer- 
cise either a constituted hierarchy or apostolic suc- 
cession. 

The Church at Jerusalem continues, during this 
period, a religious center for all the Christians. 
From it go forth the first missionaries; it sends 


* This is the assumption of Thiersch. 


. 94. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


spontaneously delegates into the countries where the 
Gospel has already gained some ground, as in Sama- 
ria and at Antioch. In later times important con- 
ferences on the question of the admission to baptism 
of Gentile converts will be held within it. It could 
hardly have been otherwise in the first period. This 
central position resulted from the situation of the 
new Churches, from their weakness and inexpe- 
rience. But it would be a grave misconception to 
regard Jerusalem as the Rome of the first century ; 
this would be to forget altogether the difference of 
the times. 

We have seen, after the brief phase of the Church’s 
history when all was miraculous and supernatural, 
the commencement of internal division. The teach- 
ing and martyrdom of Stephen, the mission in Sa- 
maria, the formation of the Church at Antioch, the 
conversion of Cornelius, all these events, which fol- 
lowed each other rapidly, brought into full view the 
question of the relations of Christianity with Judaism. 
The discussion is to take still broader ground, through 
the influence of St. Paul ; it will be at times enven- 
omed by the evil passions of the false teachers of 
Galatia and the schismatics of Corinth, but we shall 
see it, nevertheless, steadily advancing to its solution, 
by means of wholesome experience and_ brotherly 
consultations, in which the free and living character 
of the inspiration of the new covenant will strikingly 
appear ; but we shall find no radical opposition be- 
tween the disputants ; and the theories which sup- 
pose two irreconcilable forms of Christianity in the 


apostolic Church will prove to be as fabulous as the 
legends of tradition. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 95 


GHAPTE RTL. 


CONVERSION OF PAUL. HIS FIRST MISSION. 


§ I. Saul of Tarsus. His Preparation and 


Conversion. 


VERY great truth which is to win a triumph- 

ant way must become incarnate in some one 
man, and derive from a living, fervent heart that 
passion and power which constrain and subdue./ So 
long as it remains in the cold region of mere ideas it 
exercises no mighty influence over mankind. The 
truths of religion are not exceptions to this law. 
God, therefore, prepared a man who was to repre- 
sent, in the primitive Church, the great cause of the 
emancipation of Christianity, and whose mission it 
was to free it completely from the bonds of the syna- 
gogue. This man was St. Paul, and never had noble 
truth a nobler organ. He brought to its service an 
heroic heart, in which fervent love was joined to in- 
domitable courage, and a mind equally able to rise 
to the loftiest heights of speculation and to pene- 
trate into the deepest recesses of the human soul. 
All these great qualities were enhanced by absolute 
devotedness to Jesus Christ, and a self-abnegation 
such as, apart from the sacrifice of the Redeemer, 
has had no parallel upon earth. His life was one 
perpetual offering up of himself. His sufferings 
have contributed, no less than his indefatigable ac- 


96 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


tivity, to the triumph of his principles. Standing 
ever in the breach for their defense—subject to most 
painful contradictions, not only from the Jews, but 
from his brethren—execrated by his own nation—ma- 
ligned by a fanatic and intolerant section of the 
Church, and threatened with death by those Gentiles 
whose claims he so boldly advocated—-he suffered as 
scarcely any other has suffered in the service of 
truth ; but he left behind a testimony most weighty 
and powerful, every word sealed with the seal of the 
martyr. Paul was the first missionary to the Gen- 
tile world, and he thus effectually inaugurated the 
universal triumph of Christianity. It was needful 
that the door of the Church should be opened to the 
thousands of proselytes from Corinth, Athens, Eph- 
esus, and Rome, who came up to it and knocked. 
But the great Apostle of the Gentiles was not satis- 
fied with this irresistible argument from facts ; he 
added to it reasoning equally able and eloquent, and, 
armed with dialectics perfectly adapted to the habits 
of mind of his opponents, he victoriously established 
his principles. 

The epistles in which these reasonings have in 
part come down to us, bear on every page the im- 
press of his heart and mind ; they show us the whole 
man, and the very style depicts in vivid characters 
his moral physiognomy. His polemics are especially 
admirable, because with him a negation always leads 
to a weightier affirmation ; he never destroys with- 
out replacing, and, like his Master, abolishes only 
by fulfilling. He is not only an incomparable dia- 
Jectician in the subversion of error, but he is able 
also to discern all the consequences of a truth, and 


BOOE -1-——FIRST- CENTURY. 97 


to grasp its marrow and inner substance. This great 
controversialist is, therefore, at the same time, the 
first representative of that true Christian mysticism 
which St. John was so fully to develop. St. Paul 
triumphed over Judaism only by putting in its place 
Christianity in all its breadth and beauty. What 
holiness, strength, nobleness of character he dis- 
played in the course of his ministry will appear as 
we trace his history. St. Paul is the type of the re- 
former in the Church; in every fresh struggle for 
the Church’s freedom, his will be the track in which 
courageous Christians will follow. No true reforma- 
tion can be wrought in any spirit other than that of 
Paul—a spirit equally removed from the timidity 
which preserves that which should be destroyed, 
and the rashness which destroys that which should 
be preserved. 

When God is forming a powerful instrument for 
the accomplishment of his designs, the process of 
preparation is long and gradual. Every circum- 
stance is brought to bear on the education of the 
chosen witness, and every experience, even of wrong 
and error, is made to enhance the power and com- 
pleteness of the testimony rendered. When a man 
is called to effect some great religious reformation, it 
is important that he should himself have an experi- 
mental acquaintance with the order of things which 
he is to reverse or transform. The education of 
Paul the Pharisee, was to him what the convent of 
Erfurt was to Luther. It was well that he who was 
to break the yoke of Jewish legalism should himself 
have first suffered under its bondage. Thus, while 
the question of the emancipation of Christianity had 


έ 


98 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


been stated by men belonging, like Stephen, to the 
most liberal section of Judaism—the Hellenist Jews 
—it was to receive its final solution from a man who 
had himself felt the full weight of the yoke. 

Saul belonged to a Jewish family, rigidly attached 
to the sect of the Pharisees. His name, which sig- 
nifies “The desired one,’ has led some commenta- 
tors * to suppose that he, being born, like Samuel, 
after hope long delayed, was, like him, specially con- 
secrated by his parents to the service of God, and, 
therefore, sent from his early childhood to Jerusalem 
to study the sacred writings in the most famous 
school of the age. However this may be, it is evi- 
dent that his mind had a natural bent toward such 
studies. He may have received some intellectual 
development in his own city. Strabo tells us that 
literary and philosophical studies had been carried 
so far at Tarsus that the schools of Cilicia eclipsed 
those of Athens and of Alexandria.t It appears, 
however, from the evidence of Philostratus, that a 
light and rhetorical school of learning predominated 
at Tarsus ; more attention was paid to brilliance of 
expression than to depth of philosophical thought.t 
The life of the East there reveled in boundless lux- 
ury, and the corruption of manners reached its ut- 
most length. The young Jew, endowed with a high- 
toned morality, may well have conceived a deep dis- 
cust for this pagan civilization ; and these first im- 
pressions may have tended to develop in him an 
excessive attachment to the religion of his fathers. 

* Neander, ‘‘ Pflanzung,” i, 138. 


+ Strabo, ‘* Geography,” xiv, 5. 
1 Philostratus, “ Life of Apollonius of ‘T'yana,” i, 7. 


BOOK. 1:=—FIRSE CBNTURY. 99 


We may, probably, attribute to his abode at Tar- 
sus the literary culture displayed in his writings. 
He familiarly quotes the Greek poets, and poets of 
the second order, such as Cleanthes, (Acts xvii, 28,) 
Menander, (1 Cor. xv, 33,) and Epimenides, (Titus 
i, 12.) According to the custom of the rabbis of the 
time, he had learned a manual trade, and as the 
Cicilian fabrics of goats’ hair were famous for their 
strength, he had chosen the calling of a tent-maker. 

Jerusalem was the place of his true education. 
He was placed in the school of Gamaliel, the most 
celebrated rabbi of his age. Acts xxii, 3. We know 
how fully the scholastic spirit was developed among 
the Jews at this period. To the schools of the 
prophets had succeeded the schools of the rabbis ; 
the living productions of the Divine Spirit had been 
replaced by commentaries of minutest detail, and 
the sacred text seemed in danger of being completely 
overgrown by rabbinical glosses, as by a parasitic 
vegetation. 

While an ingenious and learned school, formed at 
Alexandria, had contrived by a system of allegorical 
interpretation to infuse Platonism into the Old Tes- 
tament, the school at Jerusalem had been growing 
increasingly rigid, and interdicted any such daring 
exegesis. It clung with fanatic attachment to the 
letter-of the Scriptures, but, failing to comprehend 
the spirit, it sunk into all the puerilities of a narrow 
literalism. Its interpretations lacked both breadth 
and depth; it surrendered itself to the subtilties of 
purely verbal dialectics. Cleverly to combine texts— 
to suspend on a single word the thin threads of an 
ingenious argument—such was the sole concern of the 


ΤΌΘ᾽ EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


rabbis. Gamaliel appears to have been the most 
skilled of all the doctors of the law. He is still ven- 
erated in Jewish tradition under the title of “ Ga- 
maliel the Aged.” The “Mishna” quotes him as an 
authority. We are inclined to believe that he, may 
have been less in bondage than the other doctors of 
his day to narrow literalism, and that he may have 
maintained a spirit more upright and elevated. His 
benevolent intervention on behalf of the Church at 
Jerusalem distinguishes him honorably from those 
implacable Jews, who were ready to defend their prej- 
udices by bloody persecutions. The fact of his hav- 
ing had a disciple like Saul of Tarsus, who must have 
been through his whole life’ characterized by a grave 
moral earnestness, leads us to suppose a true superi- 
ority in the teaching of Gamaliel. He had not got 
beyond the stand-point of legalism, but this he at 
least presented in its unimpaired and unabated maj- 
esty. He was not a man to delude the conscience 
with subterfuges, and his disciples were therefore dis- 
posed to austerity of life, and were distinguished by 
a scrupulous fidelity to the religion of their fathers. 
Saul of Tarsus embraced the teaching of his illus- 
trious master with characteristic earnestness and 
ardor, and, it must be added, infused into it all the 
passionate vehemence belonging to his nature. At 
the feet of Gamaliel, he became practiced in those 
skillful dialectics which were the pride of the rabbin- 
ical schools, and he thus received from Judaism itself 
the formidable weapon with which he was afterward 
to deal it such mortal blows. Here he gained a pro- 
found knowledge of the Old Testament. Gifted with 
a strong and keen intellect, he in a few years acquired 


BOOK ΞΘ -GENTURY. ΙΟΙ 


all the learning of his master. He thus amassed, 
without knowing it, precious materials for his future 
polemics ; but his moral and religious development 
in this phase of his life is of more importance to us 
than his intellectual acquirements. With all his 
knowiedge, he might have become, at the most, the 
first of Jewish doctors, surpassing even Gamaliel, 
and shedding some glory on the decadence of his 
people ; but he could never have derived from that 
vast learning the spirit of the reformer, which was to 
make him immortal in the Church. It is in the 
depths of his inner life we must seek the distinctive 
character of his early piety ; he has himself accu- 
rately described it when he says, that being “taught 
according to the perfect manner of the law of the fa- 
thers,” he “was zealous toward God.” Acts xxii,3. In 
other words, he carried into his exalted Judaism a 
truly religious spirit, and he was animated by a sin- 
cere desire to serve God. Herein was the germ of a. 
possible transformation ; and it was through this, his 
moral nature, that the transformation would subse- 
quently be wrought. 

In times of spiritual crisis, when mankind is breath- 
lessly awaiting a great religious revolution, the com- 
mon hope and expectation are manifested in two ex- 
tremes of conduct. Some men openly abandon an- 
cient forms: others cling to them with desperation, 
and demand from them with feverish impatience the 
satisfaction of the new cravings of their souls; their 
morbid excitement is in itself an evidence that they 
have not escaped the universal restlessness. They 
push to its furthest logical issues the principle in 
which. they wish to believe ; it is clear that they are 


‘ 


ΤῸ “EARLY YEARS OF THE ‘CHRISTIAN: CHURCH. 


themselves dissatisfied with its existing application, 
and seek in this way to appease their unquiet hearts. 
Such a cleaving to the past is, in truth, an aspiration 
after something beyond, an appeal for a new religious 
life. If we look closely at Saul of Tarsus while he 
is still a Pharisee, we shall discern in his manner of 
bearing the yoke a prophecy that he will one day 
cast it off. We find no likeness in him to those self- 
complacent Pharisees whose hypocrisy Christ painted 
in colors of fire. He does not seek to deceive God 
and men by vain forms, nor flatter his conscience 
that he has satisfied the law when he has paid tithe 
of mint, and anise, and cummin. ‘This young Jew is 
a zealous and scrupulous observer of all the ordi- 
nances of Moses; he receives them with all serious- 
ness ; he practices them with all sincerity and exact- 
ness. Let us listen to his own words: “I profited in 
the Jews’ religion above many my equals (in years) in 
mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of 
the traditions of my fathers.” Gal. i, 14. He declares 
again that he was “as touching the law, blameless.” 
Phil. i, 6. A faithful, scrupulous, zealous observer 
of the law above all his contemporaries ; such, then, 
was Paul. Who cannot discover beneath this extraor- 
dinary zeal the secret disquietude, the dull, oppress- 
ive uneasiness of which we have been speaking ? 
In heart, Saul of Tarsus was seeking from Judaism 
that which it had not to give. He sought salvation in 
it ; and salvation to him, as to every upright man upon 
whose soul there has never broken the bright light 
of divine forgiveness, could be nothing else than per- 
fect conformity to the will of God. The law was 
precious in his eyes as the revelation of that will, 


ΕΟΘΈΒ  ΗΤΕΘῚ. CENTURY. 103 


and he strove to keep it under the awful sanction of 
the words, “ Cursed is every one who continueth not 
in all things which are written in the book of the law 
to do them.” Gal. iii, Τὸ; Hence his restless eager- 
ness, his extraordinary zeal, in the observance of all 
the commandments of Moses. 

He seems to us, in some portions of his Epistles, to 
be recalling the memories of his early life. When 
he speaks of the powerlessness of legalism, he does 
not pause long on the development of the doctrine ; 
his argument takes a dramatic and personal form. 
We feel that he is touching what were the live 
wounds of his soul before his conversion. The sev- 
enth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans is full of 
these sorrowful memories. When he depicts to us, 
with marvelous psychological insight, that singular 
effect of the law in revealing evil to us, and giving it 
an accursed charm by presenting it as the forbidden 
fruit, (Rom. vu, 8, 9,) is he not calling to mind the 
time when, after having recognized the command- 
ment of God—the moral ideal set before his con- 
sclence—he had been consumed by a vain zeal to 
realize it, and had only gained in the struggle an 
agonizing conviction of the incurable corruption of 
human nature? Evil attracted him simply because 
it was a violation of the law of God. . 

Is it not the same Saul of Tarsus who exclaims, 
in deep sorrow of heart, “ When the commandment 
came, sin revived, and I died: and the command- 
ment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto 
death.” Rom. vii, 9, 10. He reveals himself to us, 
perpetually renewing a fruitless struggle; willing to 
keep the law, and in the measure of his desires find- 


I04, EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN. CHURCH. 


ing the measure of his powerlessness ; doing not the 
good that he would, and the evil which he would 
not, that doing. Tossed to and fro in this inward 
conflict, this war of the flesh and the spirit, which 
can have no issue till a new principle has been im- 
planted in the heart, he exclaims in despair, “O 
wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from 
the body of this death?” * Is it possible to doubt 
that the goad of the Lord had already touched his 
conscience? ‘To him the law was a real scourge ; 
no man ever groaned more heavily under the rod of 
the pitiless schoolmaster, whose mission is only ful- 
filled when he has brought his scholar bruised and 
helpless to the cross. Nor must we forget that the 
unregenerate nature was far from being wholly van- 
quished in Saul of Tarsus. Energetic and impetuous 
in character, he was easily carried away into violence, 
and, doubtless, deeply as he felt his moral misery, he 
did not cease to pride himself on the high position 
he occupied in his sect. It is not, then, surprising 
that at the time of the first conflict between Phari- 
saism and the Church at Jerusalem, Saul should 


*It has often been questioned whether this portion of the Epistle 
to the Romans refers to Paul’s moral condition before or after his 
conversion. It seems to us that feelings of discouragement and de- 
' Spair, such as are expressed here, are inconceivable in a Christian 
who knows the secret of victory, and who has received from God the 
principle of a new life. Let us not forget, however, that the Chris- 
tian is never perfect, and that he falls back by his inconsistencies, 
under the dominion of the flesh. At such times his old feelings re- 
turn, and the moral contradiction described in this chapter is not 
without analogy in the history of days of decline and fall in his 
Christian life. But it is none the less true that this picture of the 
impotent wrestlings of the soul finds its complete realization only in 
the unconverted man. 


BOOK 55 Ὁ] CENTURY: IO5 


have approved and encouraged the persecution. 
The internal fever which consumed him—the desire 
to believe himself satisfied—his passionate attach- 
ment to every thing Mosaic—all contributed to make 
him an implacable enemy of the courageous confess- 
or, who had ruthlessly shaken all his prejudices, and 
done violence, from his point of view, to all the glo- 
rious past of Israel. Saul of Tarsus was not a per- 
secutor like Caiaphas. He was not defending either 
his person or his interests. He believed himself to 
be defending his God, and the fierce emotion excited 
by the words of Stephen inflamed his anger all the 
more, because it confirmed the testimony of his 
conscience. | 

His contact with Stephen may be regarded as the 
leading event of his life. From the day in which he 
heard Stephen speak—or rather, from the day in which 
he saw him die, with a calmness so sublime—Paul 
was beside himself. He abandoned the quiet stud- 
ies of a doctor of the law; he could not go on pur- 
suing them till he had silenced that importunate 
voice within, which declared them to be of no avail. 
He felt that if Stephen’s words were true, all the 
scaffolding of his legal virtues and Judaistic learning 
would fall to the ground. He was at heart more 
troubled than he was willing to appear; a secret 
doubt gave him no rest, and he sought to shake it 
off by persecuting those who had called it forth. 
Hence that redoubled zeal which marks the moral 
crisis at its culminating point. “ He breathed out,” 
as the sacred writer tells us, “ threatening and slaugh- 
tel (ete tx, 1} and“ made havoc of the Church, 
entering into every house, and hailing men and 


106 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


women committed them to prison.” Acts viii, 3. 
In every synagogue, he himself says, “I punished 
them oft, compelling them to blaspheme.” He 
thought that by thus coercing the new converts to 
open retraction, he would obtain an unanswerable ar- 
gument against the new religion, and would confirm 
his own convictions. But nothing appeased him, 
and his violence went on growing with his doubts. 
A moment came when it broke through all bounds, 
and not content with persecuting the Church at Je- 
rusalem, he started for Damascus, with letters from 
the high priest to the elders of the synagogue, au- 
_thorizing him to lay violent hands on the Christians 
in that city. And now God’s appointed time was 
come. 

While we thus regard the conversion of Paul as 
the issue of a long and painful preparatory period of 
inward crisis, we in no way detract from the impor- 
tance of the remarkable miracle which was its imme- 
diate cause. If certain dispositions of mind were 
required by Jesus Christ as preparatory even for a 
miracle affecting the body alone, such as the healing 
of blindness or paralysis, how much more necessary 
must they be for a miracle wholly spiritual. The 
latter can only be received in its full power and 
meaning by a man whose heart has been prepared 
by God. This important truth comes out with a 
high degree of evidence from the narrative of the 
conversion of the Apostle. 

As he was on the way, and already near Damas- 
cus, suddenly there shined round about him a light 
from heaven, and accompanying the brilliant flash a 
voice was heard with the shock of thunder. The 


BOOK: £-—TIRST. CENTURY, 107 


companions of the Apostle saw the dazzling bright- 
ness, but could discern no distinct image; they 
heard the voice also, but caught no words.* Awe- 
struck, they fell to the ground. Acts xxvi, 14. They 
were witnesses only of the outward miracle; but 
within the external was another manifestation of a 
far higher order, which was perceived only by Saul, 
because he alone was prepared to receive it. In the 
bright light Jesus appeared to him, and in the con- 
fused noise he heard the voice of Christ making to 
him the most solemn appeal.ft Paul’s subsequent 
repeated and distinct references to the events of this 
day as establishing his right to the apostolate, on. 
the ground, directly and positively stated, that he had 
seen Jesus Christ, set aside absolutely the theory of 


* Acts ix, 7. Compare Acts xxii, 9. 

+ Baur (‘‘ Paulus,” pp. 70, 71) lays stress upon the slight discrep- 
ancies which may be observed between Luke’s narrative and the ac- 
counts which St. Paul himself gives of this transaction, and draws the 
conclusion that Luke’s recital is only legendary. But these discrep- . 
ancies are quite unimportant, and vanish before a close examination. 
We have carefully noted the various versions of the event in our rep- 
resentation of it. The supposed discrepancies are three in number. 
According to Acts ix, 7, the companions of Paul heard ‘‘a voice,” while 
in Acts xxii, 9, we are told they ‘“‘heard not the voice of Him” that 
spake. The two statements seem to us reconcilable by supposing, as 
we have done, that Paul’s companions heard inarticulate sounds, but 
not distinct words, (‘‘ the vozee of him that spake to 716.) According 
to Acts ix, 7, the same men saw no man; according to Acts xxii, 9, 
they saw the light. Here again we have a reference only to the ex- 
ternal aspect of the miracle. It is possible to see a light, and yet to 
see no man. Finally, according to Acts ix, 7, the companions of 
Saul ‘‘stood speechless ;”” according to Acts xxvi, 14, they fell ““ἴο the 
earth.”? There is no necessary contradiction between the two state- 
ments. We have not even alluded to the naturalistic explanation of 
the miracle, according to wnich Saul of Tarsus was struck to the 
ground by a thunderstorm. It is beneath discussion. 


108 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


a mere vision.* Paul did actually see Jesus, and 
hear him; but the fact that he alone did so on this 
occasion shows how entirely the perception of a mir- 
acle may depend on the moral condition. Every 
miracle has a twofold aspect—one external, and be- 
longing to the whole world ; the other spiritual and 
divine, discernible only by the inward eye. 

Let us endeavor to give some account of the mys- 
terious scene which transpired on the road to Damas- 
cus, the consequences of which were so moment- 
ous to the Apostle and to the Church. Saul of Tar- 
sus is already secretly troubled in mind. He has 
closely observed the first Christians, has watched 
their pure and holy lives, and their still more re- 
markable deaths. The remembrance of Stephen is 
constantly present with him. He has, at the same 
time, proved the utter impotence of the old law; he 
is exhausted with inward struggles, and yet trembles 
at the thought of repudiating his past life. All these 
mingled emotions are tumultuous within him as he 
journeys toward Damascus. His conscience is ill at 
ease; his spirit is at once depressed and stirred 
within him. At this crisis Jesus appears to him; 
and asks, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” 
The question wakes a deep echo in his soul; and 
when the voice goes on to say, “I am Jesus, whom 
thou persecutest,” Saul is vanquished ; he falls light- 
ning-struck to the ground ; he feels that he has long 
been kicking against the piercing goad. Light 
bursts in upon him ; his doubts are dissipated ; he 
sees, he believes. Stephen was not deceived; Jesus 
Christ is the very Lord of glory, and it is he whom 


* Seer Gor, xv; ὃὲ 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. IOQ 


Saul had been about to persecute at Damascus. The 
shock of such a discovery is overwhelming. Saul is 
utterly crushed by it. He is himself no longer: not 
his bodily eyes alone, but the eyes of his soul are 
covered with a vail of blackness. He feels that this 
is the crisis of his spiritual life, and he gropes in the 
thick darkness, discerning clearly but this one thing, 
—that he has been persecuting Christ. Like a little 
child, he suffers himself to be led by the hand into 
the city, where, according to the promise given him, 
he is to receive new light. 

It would be a grave mistake to suppose that Saul’s 
conversion was completed on the road to Damascus. 
His pride was then broken ; his doubts were scat- 
tered ; but he did not at once rise from that tremen- 
dous blow which had severed his life in two. He 
then, indeed, received his calling as an Apostle, (Acts 
xxvi, 16-18,) but he had not then any conception of its 
greatness or of its cost. He must needs pass through 
a painful initiatory process. For three days he re- 
mains in utter darkness, and can neither eat nor 
drink. He has not told us the history of those three 
days, but it is easy to conceive what they were to 
him. He passed them, doubtless, in deepest humili- 
ation, overwhelmed both by the remembrance of his 
sins, and by a sense of the grace he had received. 
He experienced all the depths of a true repentance ; 
and, writhing under the consciousness that he had 
persecuted his Saviour, he reached the full and abid- 
ing conviction that he, the persecutor, the blasphemer 
and injurious, was the very chief of sinners. 1 Tim. 
i, 15. When, in a forcible figure, he represents the 
first stage of conversion as burial with Christ, set 


119 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


forth in the act of baptism, he may have been calling 
to mind those three days when, separated from men, 
without a ray of light breaking the awful obscurity, 
he was, for all the things of earth, as one dead. But 
deliverance had been promised him ; God had in a 
vision foretold its approach. At the same time, a 
disciple named Ananias was commanded to go and 
lay his hands upon him.* His eyes are opened, he 
receives the Holy Ghost, and is baptized; and thus 
that work of sovereign grace is completed, of which 
he was to be at once the mightiest witness and the 
most amazing monument.t 

The best preparation of a great servant of God for 
his work is stern solitude. Saul of Tarsus, before 
entering on his ministry, was sent into the wilderness, 
like Moses and John the Baptist, and like Jesus him- 
self. He lived for some years in Arabia, (Gal. i, 17,) 
in silence and seclusion, maturing his soul by prayer, 
and recovering his moral equilibrium after the violent 
shock he had experienced. From Arabia he returned 
to Damascus, burning with the desire to confess 
Jesus Christ. He preached the Gospel in the very 
synagogues in which before he had sought to stir up 
bitter adversaries against the Church. His preach- 
ing thus gave great offense. The intolerant Jewish 


* Baur, in his mythological interpretation, regards Paul’s recovery 
of sight as a symbol of the illumination produced by a new doctrine. 
{{ Paulus,” 71.) It is evident that such a system of interpretation 
does violence to the text. 

t+ Lenain de Tillemont asserts that Ananias was a priest, and 
probably a bishop of Damascus. (‘‘ Hist. Eccl.,” c. i, p. 210.) There 
is nothing whatever in the narrative to lead us to suppose he was 
even an elder of the Church. As to his being a priest or bishop, the 
idea is simply absurd at this period. 


BOOK ἘΞΞΕΈΙΕΒΤ CENTURY. IIT 


party, furious at the loss of their leader, let loose 
upon him the popular passions, and he only escaped 
death by precipitate flight. He then went up to 
Jerusalem. For the first time since his conversion 
he entered that city in which he was known only as 
the most cruel of persecutors, as the most ardent ad- 
herent of Pharisaic legalism. A severe ordeal was in 
reserve for him in the isolation in which he was for 
a long time kept by the distrust of the Church. In- 
stead of affectionate welcome, he met only with sus- 
picious fear. Men would not believe in a conversion 
soastonishing. At length he succeeded in attaching 
to himself Barnabas, a proselyte of the Isle of Cyprus, 
a man of broader spirit than the native Jews, and 
by him he was brought into the society of the Chris- 
tians. But he received no direetions from the Apos- 
tles; he only saw Peter, and James the brother of 
the Lord, and his own account of his interview with 
them is altogether incompatible with the notion that 
he sought from them any initiation into evangelical 
doctrine, (Gal. i, 19 ;) on the contrary, he declares that 
he did not receive his doctrine from them, but was 
directly taught of God. Gal. i, 11,12. It was at this 
period that, in a trance in the temple, he received, 
for the second time, the command to go to the Gen- 
tiles. Acts xxii, 17-22. But he was pressed in, 
spirit to preach the Gospel at Jerusalem. He longed, 
as at Damascus, to confess his crucified Lord and 
Saviour in the very places where he had blasphemed 
and persecuted him. He addressed himself to those 
same Hellenists for whom Stephen had labored, thus: 
taking up, at the very point where it had been left, 
the work of him for whose death he had clamored. 


ΤΕΥ YEARS OFTHE CHRISTIANIJCHURGCH, 


Such a marvelous change was well adapted to teach 
the Church the fruitfulness of the martyr’s death, and 
to enhance in its eyes the power of that grace which 
could transform the murderer of Stephen into his 
successor. Saul encountered the same _ hostility 
which he had himself once helped to provoke against 
his bold forerunner, and he was forced to flee to es- 
cape a premature death. He went first to Czesarea, 
and then to his native city, where Barnabas came to 
seek him, and took him to Antioch, where was the 
first Church gathered out of the Gentiles. Here 
Saul found himself in an atmosphere most favorable 
to his religious development ; here he preached the 
Gospel during one year, and contributed to that 
happy movement in advance, by which the Church 
became distinguished in name from Judaism. Saul 
made another short visit to Jerusalem, to carry 
thither the offerings which the Church at Antioch 
sent in anticipation of the famine predicted by Aga- 
bus, and which actually took place in the reign of 
Claudius. On their return from this journey, Saul 
and Barnabas, in consequence of a direct revelation 
of the Holy Spirit, received with the laying on of 
hands the charge of carrying the Gospel to the Gen- 
tiles. This is, properly speaking, the true commence- 
ment of Paul’s apostolic work. It is important that, 
before we go further, we should clearly comprehend 
its character. 

We know how frequently Paul insisted upon his 
privilege as an apostle, and with what vehemence 
he repudiates any inferiority in this respect in com- 
parison with his colleagues in the apostolate. “Am 
I not an apostle?” he says in his first Epistle to the 


BOOK ΞΘ CEN FURY. EES 


Corinthians, (1 Cor. ix, I ;) and adds in the second, 
“T suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest 
apostles.’ * On the other hand, we know that this 
equality claimed by him was disputed by the Judaiz- 
ing party. We may conclude from this opposition 
that his apostolate was not altogether of the same 
nature as that of the first apostles. Let us inquire 
in what way it was similar, and in what superior to 
theirs. 

We have seen that the apostolate was not a new 
priesthood, but the ideal representation of the 
Church. The apostle was the Christian of the early 
Church in an official character ; he was to raise the 
Christian vocation to its supreme dignity; he was 
thus, pre-eminently, the witness of Jesus Christ, for 
the special mission of this first generation of Chris- 
tians was to preserve to the world the living memory 
of the: Redeemer, St.Paul, τ this’ respect; ih noe 
way differs from the twelve ; like them, he is one of 
the accredited witnesses of the great fact of salvation, 
only his credentials are of a peculiar kind. The es- 
sential condition for taking rank among the twelve 
first apostles was, “to have been with the Lord Jesus 
all the time that he went in and out among them, 
beginning from the baptism of John unto that same 
day that he was taken up from them.” Acts i, 21, 
22. Paul could not adduce any external connection 
with the Saviour in the days of his flesh; he had 
not seen the historic Christ, so to speak ; he had seen 
only the ascended and glorified Christ. This sight 
of him, however, was not a mere vision ; it was m1- 
raculous and positive, and it confers on St. Paul an 


#2 Cor. xi, 5. “Comp. Rom. xv, 15, 16; Gal. i, I. 


114. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


authority in no way inferior to that of the twelve 
apostles. But it is equally true that, in this respect, 
he more nearly represents the numerous generations of 
Christians who have had no outward relations with the 
incarnate Saviour. Again, he stands apart from that 
symbolic number of the twelve, which points to the 
ancient tribes of Israel. He is the apostle of the 
Church, as it bursts the confines of Judaism ; the 
apostle of mankind, rather than of a nation. Lastly, 
he did not receive his office by transmission: Ana- 
nias, who laid his hands on him, was a simple be- 
liever. His apostolate was conferred on him by a 
direct revelation ; it stands in no relation to any 
positive institution, but it carries its own glorious 
witness in its results. Paul represents essentially the 
reforming portion of the Church ; he inaugurates the 
apostolate of the demonstration of the Spirit and of 
power, that from which almost all other Christian offi- 
ces ultimately spring, that which breaks, when needful, 
the framework of imperfect ecclesiastical organization, 
and lives by a life independent, both in its origin and 
continuance, of mere institutions. Let us not forget, 
however, that St. Paul, while he was the representa- 
tive of the Church in its free development, derived a 
special authority from the direct mission which, by 
revelation, God had conferred upon him.* 


*M. Scherer, in an article on the apostolate in general, and on that 
of St. Paul, (“‘ Revue du Theologie,”’ tom. ili, 6th edit.,) ascribes all 
that the Apostle says as to his authority to a false conception enter- 
tained by him of the apostolate at large. It seems to us that he might 
easily have avoided so extreme a conclusion by admitting that en- 
largement of the primitive apostolate, which was to lead to the true 
apostolical succession, the inheritance of the Christian Church as a 
whole. 


BOOK I.—FIRST -CENTURY. 115 


One preliminary question remains to be noticed. 
Paul declares, in his Epistle to the Galatians, that 
the Gospel he preaches comes not from man. “I 
neither received it of man,” he says, “neither was I 
taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Gal. 
i, 11-13. Are we to conclude from these words that 
Paul received by direct revelation the whole divine 
history of salvation? We think not. God _ never 
works useless miracles ; he does not communicate 
by supernatural means that which can be acquired 
without such aid. There is no reason why we should 
not believe that St. Paul obtained his acquaintance 
with the substance of the Gospel in his interviews 
with Ananias and the other disciples at Damascus. 
It is probable, also, that he may have himself drawn 
from fuller sources. Perhaps he may have had in his 
hands one of those written declarations of the things 
most commonly believed, to which Luke alludes, and 
which were in very early times’ circulated in the 
Churches. When Paul speaks of his Gospel, he in- 
tends by the word his own manner of presenting the 
truth, and especially his profound view of the old and 
new covenant—of the law and justification by faith. 
These great truths he did not receive from any man 
—they were given him by the Holy Ghost. We see, 
indeed, that the revelation which he received in the 
Temple at Jerusalem bore directly on his mission to 
the Gentiles, (Acts xxii, 21 ;) it thus presupposed an en- 
largement of his religious views. Paul himself tells 
us that the mystery revealed to him in these last days 
had reference to the calling of the Gentiles. Eph. i, 
9, 10. His deep experience of the weakness of Juda- 
ism, combined with the marvelous and _ sudden 


I16 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


deliverance granted to him, was adapted, under the 
enlightening influence of the Divine Spirit, to bring 
him to a complete apprehension of the relation of the 
two covenants. Had not the great antithesis of the 
law and grace been realized in his life before it was 
expressed in his writings ? 


SII. St. Paul’s First Fourney. 


Until the time when he was sent forth by the 
Church at Antioch, Saul had confined himself to 
preaching the Gospel to the Jews and proselytes. He 
did not enter on his great mission-field among the 
Gentiles till this first journey, which was, therefore, 
one of great importance to himself and to the Church. 
It called forth differences of opinion which led, ulti- 
mately, to the Council at Jerusalem ; and the result 
of that council was the first solution of the question 
which had already raised more than one stormy con- 
tention among the Christians. Saul and Barnabas 
left Antioch accompanied by John, whose surname 
was Mark. Acts xiii, 5. He was a disciple from 
Jerusalem, the son of that Mary in whose house the 
Church met to pray for Peter’s deliverance from 
prison. Acts xii, 12. He appears to have been a 
convert of Peter, who calls him his son. 1 Peter 
17. Ele was subsequently Peter’s interpreter.* 
From his antecedents we may gather that he was, at 
this time, strongly imbued with the prejudices of a 
Judaizing Christianity. He was not yet on the same 
level of enlightenment with Paul, and a separation 
between them soon ensued. It is possible that on 


* Eusebius, ἐς Hist. Eccl.,”” Book III, c. xxxix. 


BOOK, f-——PIRST GENTURY. 112 


his return he may have contributed, by the reports he 
brought, to occasion the controversy between the 
Apostles and the narrow Christians of Jerusalem. 
The differences between them cannot have been 
slight, since Paul preferred to separate from Barna- 
bas rather than to accept his kinsman again as a col- 
league. From his Epistles we learn, however, that the 
difference was only transitory, for Mark subsequently 
appears again among the companions of Paul. Phile- 
mon. 24.:-2 lim.iv,11 ; Colpiv,1o, - Barnabas *beme 
a native of Cyprus, the delegates from Antioch first 
visited that island. They passed through its whole 
extent. After a short stay at Salamis, they went to 
Paphos, a town rebuilt under Augustus. It was in 
this place, defiled by the infamous rites of the worship 
of Astarte, that Paul won his first conquest over 
heathenism. The highest dignitary of the island, 
Sergius Paulus,* was one of those who, disgusted 
with the polytheism of the West, was seeking in the 
religions of the East, and especially in Judaism, the 
satisfaction of vague aspirations. This state of mind 
had rendered him susceptible to the sorceries of the 
Jewish magician Elymas, who, like Simon of Sama- 
ria, turned to account, by base deceptions, the relig- 
ious cravings of the age. Sergius Paulus had not, 
however, yielded entirely to the seductions of the 


* Sergius Paulus is called ἀνθύπατος. This title corresponds to pro- 
consul. He served under the governor of the senatorial provinces, 
while the governors of the provinces, receiving their authority di- 
rectly from the emperor, were called propreetors. The island of 
Cyprus was at first, under Augustus, a senatorial province, (‘f Dio 
Cassius,” 53, 2,) but it was afterward given to the senate, (ibid, 54, 
4). Luke’s designation of Sergius Paulus is strictly accurate, (Wiese- 
ler, ‘‘ Chron. des apostolisch. Zeitalt,” p. 225.) 


11ὃ EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


impostor, for when Saul and Barnabas arrived, he at 
once sent for them to come to him. Elymas endeav- 
ors to turn away the Proconsul from the faith ; but, 
at Paul’s severe rebuke, he is struck with sudden 
blindness, and learns, at the sharp cost of experi- 
ence, what is the difference between the sorceries of 
the magician and a true miracle. The Proconsul is 
converted to Christ, not so much by the miracle of 
which he had been the witness, as by the beauty of 
the doctrine preached to him.* 

From the island of Cyprus Paul and Barnabas 
cross into Asia Minor. They only pass through 
Perga, where Mark leaves them, and go on to Anti- 
och in Pisidia, an important town, built, like the other 
Antioch, by Seleucus Nicator. A large Jewish colony 
is there resident. To this Paul first addresses himself. 
He always, in his missionary journeys, follows the 


* Acts xiii, 12. The sacred historian from this time uses the name 
Paul instead of Saul, (Acts xiii, 9.) Jerome’s ingenious interpreta- 
tion of this is well known: ‘ Apostolus a primo ecclesize spolio pro- 
consule Sergio victoriz suze tropza retulit, erexitque vexillum ut 
Paulus ex Saulo vocaretur” (‘*De Viris Illustrit.”) The name 
Paul was borrowed (this Father supposes) from Sergius Paulus, in 
token of the Apostle’s victory, and as a trophy of this first triumph 
over paganism. But Jerome has not observed that Luke does not 
say that the name of Saul was changed on this occasion ; he simply 
mentions, in a general manner, that Saul was also called Paul. We 
have no right to identify the time when this name appears in the nar- 
rative with that of its first adoption by the Apostle. Other commen- 
tators have supposed the name Paul, which signifies small, hum- 
ble, mean, to have been assumed by Saul after his conversion, and 
they bring forward 1 Cor. xv, gin support of their view; but had this 
been so, Luke would have spoken of this change of name in connec- 
tion with Saul’s conversion. Weare disposed rather to think that Paul 
was the Greek form of the name Saul, and that the Apostle, ufter en- 
tering upon his mission among the Gentiles, began to use it habitually. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 119 


order adopted by God himself in the gift of his reve- 
lations. He held it his duty to preach the Gospel 
first to those who had received in the law and the 
prophets a direct preparation for it. We know, 
besides, what tender affection he felt for his people, 
and what a lofty patriotism blended with the breadth 
of his enlarged Christianity. The synagogue at 
Antioch seems to have been considerably frequented 
by the Gentile population ; at least so we may gather 
from the composition of the audience which received 
the Gospel from the lips of Paul. Acts xiii,'‘44, 45. 
Judaism was thus confronted with paganism, and the 
Christian Church was to learn, by a significant and 
decisive fact, in what quarter it would find the readi- 
est accessions. For the first time the two great re- 
ligious sections of mankind were summoned on the 
same day to take their position in relation to Chris- 
tianity. Itis a critical moment in the history of the 
apostolic age. 

When Paul has received the invitation to speak 
the word of exhortation, he turns to his countrymen 
and addresses to them an appeal most earnest and 
touching. The plan of his discourse, of which evi- 
dently we have only the leading points, is admirably 
adapted to his purpose. Speaking to Jews, he 
takes his stand on the ground of the old covenant. 
He first shows the historic descent of Christ, Just 
as the kings succeeded the judges, so the Son of 
David has succeeded the kings, and has inaugurated 
dew Πρ ΞΡ. Acts ‘xii,. 23. The last. of .the 
prophets, John the Baptist, recognized him as the 
Messian, “cts. xii, 25. If objection be taken fo 
his ignominious death, that death itself Paul shows 


120 BARLY “YEARS -OF. THE Ὁ ΠΪΕΙΘΕ ΑΝ ΞΡ  ΘῊ: 


to be part of the prophecies concerning him, 
Every Sabbath, in every synagogue, the prophetic 
oracles declaring it are read. And beyond this, he 
is risen again, and has been seen of his disciples ; and 
this glorious fact, foretold by the prophets, is a pledge 
of the fulfillment of the promises. Acts χη 32, 33. 
So far Paul follows substantially the same method as 
Peter. In addressing Jews he could not, indeed, 
well do otherwise, but his conclusion is startlingly 
new. For the first time he proclaims the impotence 
of Judaism, and preaches salvation by faith alone. 
“By him,” he says, “all that believe are justified 
from all things, from which [they] could not be justi- 
fied by the law of Moses.” He concludes by 
reminding his hearers how awful is their responsi- 
bility. 

This discourse produced a deep impression ; but 
while the Gentiles were filled with joy, there were 
murmurings of indignation among the Jews. These 
could no longer be restrained when, the next Sabbath, 
a large concourse of Gentiles came up to the syna- 
gogue. Paul had given his countrymen a grand 
opportunity of vindicating themselves from the heavy 
charge which had rested on their nation ever since 
the crucifixion of Christ. Far from embracing it, 
they sanction by their conduct the crime of their 
brethren, and betray once more the obstinate pride 
of their race, at the very moment when the ignorant 
Gentiles eagerly receive the Gospel. Paul and Bar- 
nabas are filled with holy indignation ; this confirmed 
resistance of the Jews draws from them those words 
of incalculable import, “Lo! we turn to the Gen- 
tiles!” A new era opens upon the Church. The 


BOOK -I:-——FIRST CENTURY. IZ 


grateful Gentiles throng around the Apostles—con- 
versions are multiplied—but at the same time, perse- 
cution, stirred up by the Jews, breaks out in fury, 
and Paul and Barnabas are compelled to quit the 
country, leaving behind them. a host of neophytes. 
As they depart they shake off the dust of their feet, 
and this symbolical act is a fresh proof that the sever- 
ance between the Church and the synagogue is 
complete. 

At Iconium—a neighboring city—similar scenes 
are enacted. The Gospel is preached with acceptance 
to the Gentiles, but the exasperated Jews league 
themselves with some fanatics, (Acts xiv, 3-6,) and 
the Apostles escape death only by flight. They con- 
tinue their journey no further in Asia Minor ; but on 
returning they pass through Derbe and Lystra, 
cities of Lycaonia, built not far from the mountain 
chain of Taurus. 

The people of this region were rude and ignorant ; 
they still clung to ancient paganism with its absurd 
fables. They were distinguished by their fanaticism, 
and carried into their religious ideas the same wild 
passion as their neighbors, the people of Phrygia. 
The worship of Jupiter and Mercury was in favor 
in these provinces. In the familiar fable of Phile- 
mon and Baucis, these two divinities appear in 
Phrygia. A temple to Jupiter had been built at the 
gates of Lystra. Such a people would be sure to 
love the marvelous. The miraculous healing of the 
impotent man by Paul excited, therefore, the most 
lively enthusiasm. On all hands the cry was raised, 
“ The gods are come down to us,” (Acts xiv, II, 12,) 
and Paul and Barnabas were hailed under the hon- 


122, FARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN ΗΜ ΕῊΗΣ 


ored names of Mercury and Jupiter. The Apostles, 
not understanding the language of the country,* were 
unconscious of this idolatrous homage till they saw 
the priest of the false gods approaching them with 
garlands and oxen for sacrifice. Indignant and dis- 
tressed, they ran in among the people, rending their 
clothes according to the Jewish custom, and disclaim- 
ing the impious worship offered them. “ Sirs, why 
do ye these things?” they exclaim ; “we also are 
men of like passions with you.” Acts xiv, 15. They 
then press upon their hearers a belief in the true 
God. We observe in these words of Paul that beau- 
tiful idea, so often brought out by him, that even 
before the coming of Christ God’s care had not been 
concentrated solely on the Jews, but that he had, in 
the benefits of his providence, given to the Gentiles 
also a revelation designed to prepare them for yet 
higher blessings. Acts xiv, 17, 18. It was hence- 
forward not difficult for the Jews of the neighboring 
cities to stir up against the Apostles a multitude 
already ill-pleased. Paul was stoned, and dragged 
out of the city for dead, and his subsequent recovery 
was nothing less than amiracle. After rapidly pass- 
ing again through the cities where they had preached 
the Gospel, and presiding at the election of elders, 
Paul and Barnabas set sail from Attalia to return to 


*The people used, before Paul and Barnabas, the language of 
Lycaonia. Acts xiv, 11. In the same tongue they call Barnabas 
Jupiter, and Paul Mercury. And yet Paul and Barnabas have no 
suspicion of the thing at the time. The feelings of the people seem 
to have been explained to them. Acts xiv, 14. It is clear they did 
not comprehend the language. It was rather a Greek patois than a 
language ; it is probable that the people knew Hellenic Greek, since 
Paul’s discourse seems to have been at once understood. 


BOOK 1,——FIRST CENTURY. 123 


Antioch. Their first missionary journey was ended, 
and its glorious results were summed up in the grand 
declaration: that “God had opened the door of faith 
unto the Gentiles.”* Acts xiv, 27. 

This journey gave striking confirmation to all the 
revelations which Paul had received. He knew now, 
from the conversion of Sergius Paulus and the suc- 
cess of his preaching at Antioch in Pisidia, that deep 
spiritual needs were felt by the Gentiles, and that the 
heathen world was, after its manner, looking for 
redemption. But, at the same time, he had come 
into sharp contact with popular fanaticism, and had 
learned the cost of opposing it, and he had also 
proved by experience the obstinate resistance of his 
proud and opinionated countrymen. Hehad gained 
clearer ideas of the vocation wherewith he was called, 
with its inevitable accompanying perils and pains, 
and, doubtless, had already a sure presage of martyr- 
dom as the final seal of faithfulness to the truth. 


* Baur (‘ Paulus,” p. g1,) sees in the narrative of Paul’s first jour- 
ney nothing more than a skilful imitation of the miracles and dis- 
courses of St. Peter during the first era of the apostolic age. Thus 
the punishment of Elymas is the reflection of that of Simon Magus, and 
the healing of the cripple at Lystra, of the cure of the paralytic at 
the Beautiful Gate of the Temple. As to Paul’s discourses, they are 
but feeble echoes of those of Peter. On this latter point, we content 
ourselves with referring to the analysis we have given of Paul’s ser- 
mon at Antioch in Pisidia. It is very natural that in the first part of 
the discourse, when speaking to the Jews, he should employ a mode 
of argument similar to that which Peter uses in addressing the same 
opponents. As to the miracles of Paul, what difficulty is there in 
supposing that two magicians and two paralytics should have crossed 
the path of the Apostles. An attentive observation of the sacred 
narrative will also discover positive differences between the two 
series of facts. What history could stand before such criticism as 
this ? 


I24. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


But the glorious victories he had just gained, and the 
“marks of the Lord Jesus,’ which he already 
bore in the body wounded for his sake, gave him a 
right to be heard at Jerusalem, as at Antioch. God 
had confirmed his apostleship in a manner not to be 
mistaken. He was ready for the great internal 
conflict of the Church, after having so mightily 
served the common cause in the conflict with outlying 
heathenism. 


BOOK: 1.——-FIRST CENTURY. 125 


CHAP TER EY. 


THE, TWO CONFERENCES AT JERUSALEM, AND THE 
DISPUTE AT ANTIOCH. 


SI. Zhe Two Conferences. 


HE Christian Church had reached a critical 

moment. It had already long passed out of 
the peaceful upper chamber at Jerusalem. Important 
questions had arisen which clamored for solution. 
It must be decided if a Judaizing Christianity or a 
Christianity of broader principles was to govern the 
Churches gathered from among the heathen. A 
great step in the path of emancipation had been 
taken when circumcision had been declared not ob- 
ligatory in the case of Gentile converts, and they had 
thus been placed on the same level with Jews by 
birth. This innovation had been introduced by Paul, 
and it implied that he possessed authority equal to 
that of the twelve Apostles. Hence arose two crit- 
ical questions on which minds were deeply stirred 
and greatly divided. The first referred to circum- 
cision. Is it lawful, it was asked, to abrogate an in- 
stitution consecrated by the practice of the Church? 
The question was not now confined, as in the instance 
of the conversion of Cornelius, to an isolated case, or 
the baptism of a single family ; it embraced all the 
thousands of the uncircumcised. The second ques- 
tion was touching the apostleship of Paul. Had he 


126 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


the right to use such large liberty in his chosen field 
of action? Might he thus, without even consulting 
with the Church at Jerusalem, introduce such im- 
portant changes? In other words, was he truly an 
apostle? Of these two questions, the one was of 
general interest, the other personal to Paul. The 
first demanded open deliberation in presence of the 
whole Church; while the second, which was of a more 
delicate nature, might more fitly be discussed in pri- 
vate. Two conferences, therefore, took place simul- 
taneously at Jerusalem, the one private, among the 
Apostles themselves, (Gal. ii, 1-11,) the other public, 
and with the assistance of the whole Church. Acts 
ΤΟΣ 

But before following in detail these important de- 
liberations, we shall do well to place ourselves, as far 
as possible, in the midst of the various conflicting 
influences which gave occasion tothem. It has been 
asserted that the conflict was essentially one between 
St. Paul and the other Apostles, who, we are told, 
had not in any respect advanced beyond the limits 
of Judaism. This theory is contradicted alike by the 
explicit declarations of St. Paul and by the narrative 
of Luke. We have already sketched the history of 
the Church at Jerusalem up to this period. We have 
seen that, while still continuing to observe the ordi- 
nances of the law, the Church regarded itself as form- 
ing a separate society, the basis of which was faith 
in Jesus Christ. It had already constructed its first 
simple organization. It had also, in principle, recog- 
nized the calling of the Gentiles, though without a 
full comprehension of all the consequences of that 
concession. The majority of the Christians of this 


BOOK. -.—-FIRST. CENTURY. 127 


Church were under the influence of James, the Lord’s 
brother. The opposition raised against Paul at Jeru- 
salem cannot be ascribed to any of the Apostles. 
He tells us, in his letter to the Galatians, how read- 
ily they gave to him the right hand of fellowship. 
Gal. ii, 9. But the primitive Church had not more 
power than any other to preserve itself wholly from 
the intrusion of sectarian influence. The presence 
of a few hot-headed bigots was enough to sow the 
seeds of discord. It would be impossible to suppose 
that none such found their way into the Church, in 
the multitude of the early-baptized converts. The 
spirit of Pharisaism is indestructible upon earth ; it can 
assume any form, and it is not, therefore, surprising 
to find it in the very Church which was the object 
of Pharisaic persecution. These men of narrow soul, 
taking advantage of the respect and affection shown 
by the Christians to Judaism, sought to transfuse 
into the new religion the pride and prejudices of the 
Jews of the decline. Actuated by their national ex- 
clusiveness and intolerant bigotry, they showed a 
fanatic zeal for the ancient privileges of Israel. Paul 
does not hesitate to call them false brethren. Acts 
xv, I; Gal. ii, 4. They heard with indignation of the 
results of his first missionary journey. Some of them 
went privily to Antioch, to spy out the conduct of 
their great adversary, to oppose his views, and to 
arrest, if it might be so, the liberty of practice in- 
troduced into the Churches formed under his influ- 
ence. They attacked at once the person and the 
principles of the Apostle, questioning his authority, 
and obstinately maintaining the permanent obligation 
of circumcision. Acts xv, 1. It was impossible for 


128 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Paul and his followers not to offer an energetic re- 
sistance to such interference, and it was probably by 
his advice that the Church at Antioch determined to 
carry the question before the Church at Jerusalem. 
Let us not lose sight of this circumstance, which is 
important, as it proves that the Church at Jerusalem 
had no share in raising the discussion, and that those 
who were the first agitators had no right whatever to 
speak in its name; that, on the contrary, the Chris- 
tians at Antioch had full confidence init. St. Paul 
himself distinguishes between the public and the 
private conference. “I communicated,” he says, “to 
them of Jerusalem,* but privately to them which were 
of reputation,f that Gospel which I preach among 
the Gentiles.” 

The moment was full of grave issues for the Apos- 
tle ; it was a decisive crisis, from which his authority 
must come out either seriously compromised or sanc- 
tioned before the Church. As he himself says, the 
point to be resolved was, “if by any means he should 
run, or had run in vain,” (Gal. 11, 2 ;) in other words, if 
his apostleship was to be recognized or not. Paul 
brought forward the question in a manner which ad- 
mitted of no compromise or equivocation. He had 
with him a young converted Greek, named Titus, 
who had never been circumcised. By bringing him 
to Jerusalem he came to an overt rupture with the 
Judaizing party ; he affirmed his right, and used the 
disputed freedom. 

It is not difficult to form an idea of the points de- 

* This refers to the public conference. 


t Kar’ ἰδίαν. Gal. ii, 2. This is an allusion to the private con- 
ference. 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. I29 


bated in the private conferences. The later polemics 
of St. Paul give us valuable hints on this subject, 
for his adversaries constantly repeated the same 
charges against him. The great objection to his 
apostleship was drawn from the difference existing 
between him andthe primitive Apostles. He had not, 
like them, lived with Jesus Christ ; for he was yet a 
fierce persecutor of the Church when the twelve 
were already governing it with authority. Paul met 
this objection by declaring that ‘God accepteth no 
man’s person,” (Gal. ii, 6 ;) and that, in the choice of 
his instruments, precedent forms no law. 

To those who demanded that he should have re- 
ceived his vocation by direct transmission from the 
hands of the twelve Apostles, he replied with equal 
frankness and boldness, “ They added nothing to 
me.’ * He sought, for the steps he took, no author- 
ity from those who had gone before him. The ques- 
tion, which was at first simply a personal one, soon 
became general. Paul raises it to the height of those 
great principles which animated all his ministry. 
He appeals, in support of his apostleship, to that free, 
sovereign grace of God, which is not limited by prec- 
edent, merit, or institution. The same grace which 
made hima Christian made him an apostle. Having 
done the greater, it was assuredly able to do the less. 
_ His title is in no way inferior to that of the twelve. 
Without grace, Peter would have been no more an 
apostle than he; with it, their calling was the same. 
Gal. ii, 8. If the question is raised, by what signs 
shall they recognize this second apostolate ? the Apos- 
tle’s reply is, that in these signs there is nothing ar- 


* Ovdiv προσανέθεντο. Gal. il, 6. 


9 


120 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


bitrary. They are to be as clear as the light of day. 
The grace which makes the Christian is demonstra- 
ted by its efficacy, by its results. And so, likewise, is 
the grace which makes the apostle. Let him be 
tried by this test. ‘He that wrought effectually in 
Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same 
was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.” Gal. u, 8. 
Paul placed the Churches founded by himself side by 
side with those founded by Peter. The first Apostles 
could point to the work in Jerusalem and in Samaria. 
he to the mission work at Antioch, Paphos, Iconium, 
Derbe, and Lystra, and to all the young and flour- 
ishing Churches founded by him. What higher 
demonstration of efficacious grace could there be than 
such signs as these, and who would dare to dispute 
the legitimacy of so fruitful an,apostleship ? 

This argument of Paul appeared irresistible to the 
men, who, from the extraordinary consideration they 
enjoyed, may be regarrded as the arbiters in the dis- 
pute. It is impossible, except under the bias of very 
strong preconception, to pretend to gather from the 
history that Peter, James, and John were at the head 
of the adversaries of Paul, when Paul himself so dis- 
tinctly draws the line between them and the “ false 
brethren,” who had calumniated him, and so explic- 
itly declares their readiness to recognize his apostle- 
Shita. tral. 41; 69. ¢4 Dheicnesult sol stile conterence rs 
clearly indicated by the Epistle to the Galatians. 
The Apostles divide among them the field of Chris- 
tian missions, or rather, they accept the division 
already made by God. While Peter and James con- 
tinue to devote themselves chiefly to the Jews, Paul 
and Barnabas turn to the Gentiles ; but in this division 


BOOK I.——FIRST CENTURY. 121 


of labor they are none the less united, and James 
and Peter urge Paul to remember the poor Churches 
in Palestine, and to send to them the offerings of the 
young Churches gathered out of paganism. What 
an admirable method for preserving unity in diver- 
sity! Love serves as an effectual bond among the 
Churches, and there is no need to lay upon them the 
yoke of an external and legal uniformity. The im- 
portance of this conference cannot be questioned : it 
effected the recognition of the full apostleship of Paul, 
it gave, by anticipation, sanction to the ministry of 
all whom in any age God has called to break the bon- 
dage of custom and traditional routine. 

Besides these private conferences, the Church at 
Jerusalem had public conferences, not on the ques- 
tion of the apostleship of Paul, but on the admission 
opr Gentiles” into the” Church: -» Fo" thesé “has” been 
given, by emphasis, the name of the Council of Jeru- 
salem. No better method could have been taken to 
bring into strong light the contrast between this first 
council and all that have succeeded it. It differs as 
widely in its composition, as in the mode of its de- 
liberations and in its results. It is no clerical council 
pronouncing authoritative decisions on points of 
doctrine.. Not only the apostles, but the elders, and 
the whole multitude of the believers, take part in the 
conference, because all have an equal interest in the 
question at issue.* The Council of Jerusalem is 
essentially democratic in character. At a time 
when the level of the religious life was so eievated, 
there was no fear that the gravest interests of the 


* Sov ὅλῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. Acts xv, 22. 


32 EARLY YEARS OF ΤῊΝ CHRISTIAN “CHURCH. 


Church would be compromised by a free discussion. 
The Church had not as yet opened its doors to the 
motley throng of merely nominal Christians. If it 
is asked what right had believers, who were neither 
Apostles nor elders, to sit in the first council, the 
answer is ready, without an appeal to the general con- 
stitution of the Church at that period. It is sufficient 
to remember that every one of these Christians was 
prepared to endure martyrdom for the faith. Those 
who are ready to die for the Church have the truest 
qualification for its government. A fair considera- 
tion of the part taken by the Apostles in the council 
at Jerusalem, cannot but dispel many false concep- 
tions of the apostolic office. If they had really 
constituted a sort of autocratic college, governing 
the Church, and deciding all questions of doctrine 
and practice by their personal infallibility, they 
would on this occasion have assembled themselves, 
and sent forth to the Church their authoritative de- 
cision on the point in dispute. They would have 
inaugurated the method adopted by their so-called 
successors, and determined, without appeal, the mode 
of admission of converted Gentiles. In place of any 
such act of apostolic authority, we find a free discus- 
sion, in which the Apostles take part only lke the 
other Christians, without enforcing their opinions by 
any appeal to their peculiar prerogatives. On the 
contrary, the man of most influence in the council, 
he whose advice prevails, is not an apostle: he is 
James, the Lord’s brother, one of the elders of the 
Church at Jerusalem. The advocates of a hierarchy 
maintain that Peter presided over the council. They 
base their opinion on the fact that he was the first 


BOOK f——FiRST* GENTURY: 133 


of the Apostles to give expression to his views. In 
this, as in so many other instances, they mistake, for 
the privilege of office, that forwardness of speech and 
action which really proceeded from his natural im- 
petuosity and ardor. In this case, however, it is not 
τ correct to assert that Peter opened the conference ; 
the discussion had already gone to a considerable 
length before he spoke. ‘And when there had 
been much disputing, Peter rose up.” Acts xv, 7. 
The breadth of spirit which characterized the de- 
liberations of the Council of Jerusalem is worthy of 
all admiration. We have already shown the import- 
ance of the point to be decided. It cannot be ques- 
tioned that there were strongly marked differences of 
opinion in the assembly, even leaving out of view the 
extreme fanatical party. Between Paul and James 
the divergence was great, though both were equally 
devoted to Jesus Christ. Peter, whose mind had 
already been enlightened by a special revelation, 
occupied an intermediate position. The great body 
of the Christians sided with James. If each one had 
clung without concession to his own peculiar views, 
a lamentable schism must have resulted from these 
conferences ; but the discussion was conducted in a 
spirit of Christian liberty, which obviated all danger. 
It commenced evidently with hot and confused dispu- 
tation, (Acts xv, 7,) in which, doubtless, the accusers 
of Paul and Barnabas took the chief part. This was 
the first shock of contradictory opinion. It was 
natural that Peter, who had seen the descent of the 
Spirit upon the converted Gentiles, should promptly 
interpose in the discussion. He simply stated the 
facts of which he had been the witness, and pointed 


134. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


out the conclusions to which they naturally led. 
Since God, he says, put no difference between Chris- 
tians brought out of heathenism and those who had 
scrupulously observed the customs of Judaism, why 
impose upon them a legal ceremonial, a yoke which 
the Jews themselves had not been able to bear? 
Salvation is not attached to the ceremonial law ; itis 
the gift of the grace of God. Acts xv, 7-12. Peter, 
without entering on the crucial question of circum- 
cision, contented himself with laying it down as a 
principle, that the ceremonial law, as a whole, should 
not be made binding on converted Gentiles. 

Paul and Barnabas immediately follow Peter as 
speakers. They narrate the great results of their 
mission in Asia Minor. They describe, no doubt in 
fervent language, the eagerness of the Gentiles to 
listen to the Gospel, and contrast it with the resist- 
ance of the Jews. They point to Sergius Paulus 
converted at Paphos ; they dwell on the zeal and love 
of the Churches they have left as bright lights in the 
midst of the darkness and corruption of Asiatic 
paganism. Acts xv, 12. The assembly is thrilled 
with gladness. None of the Christians well-known 
for their special attachment to Judaism have, how- 
ever, aS yet expressed an opinion. It was of the 
greatest importance that their feeling should be 
known, for they formed the majority. James, the 
Lord’s brother, was the representative of those sin- 
cere but scrupulous disciples who did not feel them- 
selves free to discontinue ceremonial observances. 
He thus fulfilled, on this occasion, the special mission 
devolving upon him ; he served to bridge over the gap 
between the old law and the new, between legal 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. 135 


bondage and Gospel liberty. We feel, as we listen 
to him, that he has not yet reached the same stand- 
point as Peter and Paul. The prophetic oracles, 
with reference to the calling of the Gentiles, have 
more weight in his mind than the great principles of 
the new covenant. Acts xv, 15-18. The natural 
conclusion from the speeches of Peter and Paul would 
have been the complete abrogation of all legal pre- 
scription in the case of the Gentile converts. James 
does not go so far: he desires that Christians of 
Jewish extraction should still observe all the ordi- 
nances of Judaism. They, therefore, need no direc- 
tions, since they have the law of Moses, which is 
read in every city in the synagogues on the Sabbath 
day. Acts xv, 21. For the Christians converted from 
paganism James proposes a middle course. He does 
not insist on the necessity of circumcision, and on 
the observance of all the ceremonial laws ; he only 
asks that they submit to the conditions imposed on 
proselytes of the gate, in proof of their renunciation 
of heathen practices.* “Let us write unto them,” 
says James, “that they abstain from pollutions of 
idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, 
and from blood.” The first of these interdictions is 
explained by the horror the Jews had of idolatry, and 
every thing connected with it. The second was 
called forth by the deep corruption of pagan manners, 
In the prevalent laxity of morals, debauch was 
scarcely accounted a crime, and the Gentile con- 
science was in this respect especially perverted. 


The epistles of Paul bear abundant evidence that - 


* Thiersch, p. 127. 


136 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


such an injunction was greatly needed.* The third 
interdiction, that of things strangled and of blood, 
had reference to the commandments given by God to 
Noah immediately after the Deluge. Gen. ix, 4, 5. 
A distinction was thus made between the ordinances 
given to Moses and the revelation of God’s will to 
Noah. The latter represented the minimum of Jewish 
requirements, the observance of which was demanded 
of proselytes of the gate. The recommendation of 
James was, therefore, a middle course, designed to 
avoid any actual rupture between the parties. 

It has been said that James made no real conces- 
sion by this proposition—that, in fact, he secured the 
triumph of the Judaizing party. But was it nothing 
to place Christians converted from paganism, and 
who had only fulfilled the conditions required of pros- 
elytes of the gate, on the same level with the pros- 
elytes of righteousness and the Jews by birth? 
Was it nothing to consent to admit the uncircum- 
cised into the Church? Let it be remembered that 
the whole discussion originated in the question of 
circumcision, and it will be evident that the solution 
proposed by James, while it gave legitimate satisfac- 
tion to the Christian Jews, completely won the cause 
for Paul and Barnabas. . The whole conference agreed 
in the course proposed, and it was decided to send 
delegates to Antioch, provided with a circular letter 
containing the resolution unanimously taken at Jeru- 
salem. This letter is a model of Christian toleration. 
It is not weighted with anathemas ; it does not even 

* A vain attempt has been made to discover in this second interdic- 


tion a deep meaning, turning on second marriages, or on marriages 
within the degree prohibited in Leviticus, (Lev. xviii.) 


BOOK I,—FIRST CENTURY. 137 


use the tone of command ; it is not the promulgation 
of a decree. After explaining the cause of the dis- 
putation, it goes no further than to tell the Churches 
they would do well to conform to the resolutions 
passed at Jerusalem. Acts xv, 29. The letter recog- 
nizes the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as shared by 
all who took part in the council.* It was after pro- 
longed deliberation that the assembly reached a re- 
sult, which is, nevertheless, thus attributed to divine 
influence. The first Christians were not mistaken ; 
they had felt that the Spirit was in their midst. 
The calm and brotherly manner in which they had 
been able to conduct their deliberations testified to 
his presence ; and as they had faithfully sought the 
light, it had been evoked from their consultations as 
pure and bright as if it had descended from heaven 
by a direct revelation. No twothings could be more 
unlike than the canons of a council of the fourth cen- 
tury and the decisions of the council at Jerusalem. 
Passed in free conference, they appealed only to 
Christian freedom. 

We shall be much mistaken, however, if we sup- 
pose that the question of the relation of the two cov- 
enants was finally determined by these conferences. 
The obligation to observe the law was still laid on 
Jewish Christians. The concessions made to the 
Gentile converts would not long suffice. There is no 
ground whatever, therefore, for attributing any perma- 
nent value to the decree of the Council of Jerusalem. 
This decree was a temporary compromise in the in- 
terests of the peace of the Church. Acts xv, 28. Paul 


* Baumgarten, vol. II, p. 141; Lange, vol. II, p. 184; Neander, 
vol. I, p. 206. 


138 EARLY. YEARS OF “THE (CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 


does not scruple, subsequently, to discuss freely one of 
the points at issue, that touching meats offered to idols. 
He declares, in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 
that the liberty of the Gospel, rightly understood, 
banishes the scruples of a weak conscience, and that 
the Christian has a right to eat whatever is set be- 
fore ‘him. τ Cor. x, 27/:>°He*admits; however \that 
every Christian should restrain himself, if need be, in 
the exercise of this freedom, rather than offend a weak 
brother in the faith. The ancient Church never rec- 
ognized any permanent obligation in the decrees of the 
Council of Jerusalem. St. Augustine says: “For a 
time the Church divided itself into two sections, one 
composed of the circumcision, the other of the 
uncircumcision, which, while both resting on the 
Corner-stone, were distinguished by very marked 
characteristics; but that time being passed, what 
Christian would hold himself bound to abstain from 
birds strangled ὁ ἢ 


SII. The Dispute at Antioch. 


Immediately after the council at Jerusalem, Paul 
returned to Antioch with Barnabas. He was quickly 
followed thither by Peter. At this time must have 
occurred that contention between the two Apostles 
which is narrated with such courageous frankness in 
the Epistle to the Galatians. Gal. 11, 11-15. Peter, 
whose agreement with Paul had been so complete in 
the conference at Jerusalem, showed at first no scru- 
ple in associating freely with the converted Gentiles. 


* “ Quis jam Christianus observat ut turdas vel minutiores aviculas 
non attingat, nisi quarum sanguis effusus est.’? St. August., ‘‘Con- 
tra Faust.,’”? book XXXII, c. xiii. 


BOOK 1.——EIRSE:: CENTURY. 139 


But on the arrival of certain Judaizing Christians 
from Judzea, he suddenly altered his conduct; he 
separated himself from those whom before he had 
‘treated as brethren, and drew away several disciples, 
Barnabas among others, by his example. What 
could account for such a rapid change? How could 
such scruples be revived after the council at Jerusa- 
lem, and what was the errand at Antioch of these 
messengers from James, whose part in the conference 
had been so distinctly one of conciliation? For 
these questions we can find no solution, so long as we 
regard moral and religious history as governed only 
by the inflexible logic of pure reason. But looked at 
in the light of the changeableness of human nature, 
its strange inconsistencies and failings, the events 
which transpired at Antioch are only too easily to be 
explained. The Council of Jerusalem was far from 
having solved the great problem of the primitive 
Church. It in no way followed, from its decisions, 
that the Jewish and Gentile converts were absolutely 
on a par, since the former were still bound to observe 
the ordinances of Moses. The barrier was lowered, 
not removed. Thus, no sooner was the decision 
communicated than it received various interpretations. 
Paul drew from it inferences which were undoubtedly 
by implication contained in it, but which were not 
equally evident to the eyes of all. He deemed that 
henceforward Jewish Christians might freely sit at 
table with converted Gentiles, a practice which would 
be a formal abrogation of one entire portion of the 
law of Moses. Clearly nothing could be more logical, - 
when once the principle had been admitted, that con- 
verted Gentiles had the right to enter the Church 


I40 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


without being circumcised. But James had not fore- 
seen this application of the resolution. He had, in- 
deed, provided by anticipation against it, by insisting 
on the obligation of Jews by birth to conform to 
the law of Moses as it was read in all synagogues. 
Acts xv, 21. We can well imagine that he may 
have heard with alarm of the broad interpretation 
given at Antioch to his decision, and may have sent 
messengers from his Church to put an end to an in- 
novation which appeared to him at variance with the 
policy of conciliation of which he had been the wise 
promoter. It is probable that the delegates from 
James had neither his largeness of heart nor his 
conciliatory spirit. They were stronger partisans 
than he, and they carried into their mission a spirit 
of intolerance for which they were alone responsible. 
Peter, who did not wish to break with the Church at 
Jerusalem, allowed himself to be drawn into a con- 
cession, to be regretted as a failure alike in good 
faith and moral courage. The defenders of the 
primacy refuse to see in this act any thing more than 
a venial error in conduct ; one which in no way affects 
his doctrinal infallibility. They forget that Peter, in 
refusing to eat with converted Gentiles, gave sanction 
to a false doctrine. In fact, a doctrinal question was 
at stake in this question of Christian practice ; by his 
act Peter denied the equality of Christians of differ- 
ent origin, and thus espoused a positive error. All 
" the subtleties of ingenious argument cannot avert the 
conclusion that Peter’s pretended infallibility made 
shipwreck at Antioch. Paul withstood him to the 
face; he showed that his conduct was unreasonable 
and blameworthy, and he thus in open combat suc- 


BOOK J.—FIRST CENTURY. 141 


cessfully defended one of the most important conse- 
quences of the decree of the council. He was pre- 
paring for the time when, like a scaffolding reared 
only for a temporary purpose, this transitory order 
of things would give place to the complete abroga- 
tion of the ancient law. The sequel of this history 
will show that the contention between Peter and 
Paul was as short as it was sharp. The great Apos- 
tle was on the eve of undertaking another missionary 
journey. He wished to visit the Churches which he 
had founded ; he did not yet know how, under God, 
this purpose would expand, and he would be called 
to carry the Gospel into the very center of Western 
heathenism.* 


* See Note E, at the end of the volume. 


BOOK SECOND. 


SECOND PERIOD OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE.—THE 
APOSTOLIC CHURCH UP TO THE DEATH OF ST. 
PAUL, FROM A. D. 50-65. 


CHoAPERR..., 


MISSIONS OF THE CHURCH DURING THIS PERIOD. 


§ I. Second Missionary Fourney of St. Paul. 


F'TER the conferences at Jerusalem Paul made 

- but a short stay at Antioch. He was anxious 
to visit the Churches which he had founded, and to 
carry the Gospel into new countries. According to 
his original plan, Barnabas was to be his companion ; 
but the latter was not willing to separate from Mark, 
and Paul judged it not reasonable to take with them 
again the young disciple, who had Jeft them in 
Pamphylia. He did not wish to have his own liberal 
views hindered in their manifestation by a timorous 
comrade, still under the thraldom of Jewish preju- 
dice. A sharp contention followed, and Paul and 
Barnabas parted. The latter repaired with Mark to 
the Island of Cyprus, of which he was a native, while 
Paul returned into Asia Minor, accompanied by Silas. 
We shall see presently how fresh fellow-laborers 
joined him as he went. The support of such men, 
devoted to his person and his* doctrine, was very 


144. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


necessary, while he was thus plunging into conflict 
with the dark depths of paganism. The Apostle could 
scarcely have undertaken, unaided, the tremendous 
task of founding Churches and directing their first 
steps in a path so untrodden. The sense of isolation 
could not have failed also to weaken his hands, for 
his heart was as full of tenderness as of courage. 
His associates threw themselves completely into his 
work; they shared its responsibility, and acted 
rather as friends, co-workers, and disciples, than sub- 
ordinates. They yielded to his influence, but they 
did not wear it as a yoke. Silas, or Silvanus, who 
departed from Antioch with Paul, occupied a distin- 
guished position in the Church at Jerusalem. He 
was one of the delegates who carried to Antioch the 
resolutions of the conference at Jerusalem ; and from 
this circumstance it may be inferred that he had 
shown a liberal and conciliatory spirit in the deliber- 
ations. He served as a sort of link between the 
Church at Antioch and the Church at Jerusalem. 
Through him the latter was therefore directly associ- 
ated with the work of Paul among the Gentiles. 
Paul’s choice of him as a companion was thus both 
wise and prudent. Silas remained faithful to this 
mission of conciliation, for we subsequently find him 
associated with St. Peter. 1 Peter v, 12. 

Paul manifests in this second journey all the great 
qualities which make him the type of the Christian 
missionary. Feeble in health, with many infirmities, 
his bodily strength is soon exhausted, but his zeal 
never, and his very weakness gives more touching 
pathos to his appeals. Gal. iv, 14, 15. That voice, 
broken by sufferings pleads with irresistible accents. 


BOOK “Il ΒΗΘ CENTURY. 145 


He is not merely the great orator ; he seeks to win 
souls one by one, and where words are too weak, he 
uses the eloquence of tears. Acts xx, 19, 20. He 
preaches the Gospel with equal earnestness to the 
poor and unlearned, to the proconsul and the king; 
and employs as persuasive arguments in the prison 
where he teaches the slave Onesimus, as on the 
Athenian Areopagus, or at the judgment-seat of 
Festus. Not content with the extraordinary toils of 
his ministry, he supports himself by the work of his 
own hands, and, after a hard day of missionary labor, 
he may be seen providing, by tent-making, for his own 
subsistence, that he may be chargeable to none of 
the-@hurches: 2 Cor 1x, ‘L2) Acts; xvin,,.3- Freely. 
he will give that which freely he has received. This 
Christian, so free from prejudices, so liberal in spirit 
—this Apostle of a free salvation—nevertheless prac- _ 
tices himself a severe asceticism, so much the more 
to be admired because he accounts it no merit and 
makes it no ground of pride. His one desire in 
keeping his body in such subjection is to conquer sin 
and to glorify his Master. Nor may we forget that 
all these unceasing labors are wrought in the midst 
of persecution and contradiction from without, while 
within is the perpetual pressure of that mysterious 
trial, that thorn in the flesh, designed to chasten and 
prove him, which, in his powerful language, he calls 
‘a messenger of Satan sent to buffet him.” * 


* There has been much discussion as to the nature of this trial. It 
cannot have reference, as has been supposed, to the sufferings insep- - 
arable from apostleship, or Paul would not have desired exemption. 
Nor can we see in it merely the lusts of the flesh, especially after such . 
a declaration as we have in 1 Cor. vii, 7, 8. It was, probably, phys- 
ical suffering reacting upon the soul through the nervous organism. 


10 


146 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


His tact as a missionary is no less admirable than 
his zeal. Never was worker so wise as he in “ re- 
deeming the time’ —taking advantage, that is, of 
favorable occasions and circumstances. When he 
arrives in a city, he immediately finds means of 
access to the largest possible numbers. He preaches 
sometimes in the synagogues ; sometimes, as at Phi- 
lippi, by the road side ; sometimes, as in frivolous 
Athens, in the place of public resort. He adapts 
himself to the customs of every country, and far and 
wide proclaims the name of Jesus. 

Paul began his missionary journey by visiting the 
Churches which he had founded in Syria and Cilicia. 
These were very prosperous, and daily increasing in 
the number of their members. In Lycaonia the 
Apostle took to himself a young disciple, con- 
verted during his previous journey, a young man 
full of faith, and endowed by God with many excel- 
lent gifts. The son of a Jewish mother, he had been 
taught from his childhood in the Scriptures. 2 Tim. 
ii,-14,-15. His father “being ai Gentile; “he chad! not 
been circumcised. Paul deemed it well to observe 
scrupulously the decisions of the Council at Jerusa- 
lem, so as to give no ground for unjust suspicions ; 
he accordingly circumcised Timothy, considering him 
according to Jewish custom, as of Hebrew origin. 
The young missionary also received the laying on of 
the hands of the assembled elders of his Church, 
(1 Tim. iv, 14,) as Paul had received it at Antioch 
before departing on his first mission. It was the 
prompting of the Divine Spirit, which led the breth- 
ren to give to Timothy this truly apostolic commis- 
sion ; they had a prophetic foresight of the service 


BOOK 11.—FIRST. GEN ΤΟΥ: 147 


he would render to the Apostle in his great work. 
Timothy was, indeed, to Paul as a second self; the 
bond between them was like that of father and son. 
Paul’s letters bear witness to the closeness of their 
relations. “1 have no man like-minded,” he writes 
to the Philippians. Phil. ii, 20. ‘I am mindful of 
thy tears,” (2 Tim. i, 1-4,) he writes to him, speaking 
of their separation. Timothy was not less attached to 
the Churches than to Paul. He combined the energy 
of youth with the maturity of experience. Phil. 1], 22, 
The gravest and most delicate missions were safe in 
his hands. Paul had full confidence in him, and 
sometimes devolved upon him some of the most diffi- 
cult duties of his office, such as presiding over the 
organization of new Churches. Timothy, like his 
beloved master, spared not himself in the service of 
Christ ; he endured hardness to such a degree as 
even to injure his health. 1 Tim. v, 23. In his youth, 
his gentleness, his unshrinking devotedness, his utter 
forgetfulness of self, he presents to us one of the 
purest examples of primitive Christianity. He was 
the Melanchthon of the apostolic Luther. 

Paul had also with him, at the beginning of this 
journey, another companion not less faithful : he was 
a Christian of Greek parentage, as we gather from his 
name—Epaphras, or Epaphroditus.* We shall see 
him again at Paul’s side in the Roman prison. Col. 
iv, 12; Philemon 23. He appears to have possessed 
remarkable gifts; for Paul, having passed rapidly 


* There seems to us no good ground for questioning the identity of 
the Epaphras of the Epistle to the Colossians with the Epaphroditus 
of the Epistle to the Philippians. (ii, 25.) Such a contraction of an- 
cient names is most common. 


148 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


through Phrygia, left Epaphras behind, and he there 
founded the flourishing Churches of Colosse, Hie- 
rapolis, and Laodicea.* The first of these cities, built 
on the banks of the Lycus, had been at one time a 
place of much consideration, and although now in its 
decline, it was still important. Laodicea, not far 
from Colosse, was beginning to eclipse it in commer- 
cial prosperity. Hierapolis was famous for its cave 
consecrated to Cybele. These three cities belonged tc 
a country notable in the ancient world for a religious 
zeal approaching to frenzy. The worship of Cybele, 
or the Great Mother, had fostered the direst abomi- 
nations of heathenism. It displayed that hideous 
blending of sensuality and cruelty which character- 
izes all merely natural religions. Apuleius has made 
us acquainted with the abominable rites of the Phry- 
gian priests, and with the excesses of the fanatical 
eunuchs called “ Gal/z,’ whose convulsive dances and 
deafening music were of world-wide repute. It 
might be easily foreseen that Christianity would 
with difficulty preserve its own purity in so tainted 
an atmosphere. 

Paul merely passed through Phrygia, but made a 
longer stay in Galatia. There he found a race en- 
tirely new to him. The Galatians were not pure 
Asiatics, but a Western race, of Gallic and Celtic 
origin, which had settled in Asia Minor three centu- 
ries before Christ, and which, although modified by 
long sojourn in the East, yet retained in many respects 
their original type. The people of these countries 

*Nowhere in the Acts do we read of any sojourn of Paul’s at 


Colosse, while it is positively said in the Epistle to the Colossians 
that they received the Gospel from Epaphras.. (Col. i, 7.) 


BQOK “21, FIRST -CENTURY. 149 


were at once warlike and democratic ; they had for 
a long time governed themselves, and under the im- 
perial dominion had retained their own rulers. Faul, 
ever ready to be all things to all men, threw an un- 
wonted vivacity into his preaching in order to make 
an impression on their warm and sensitive natures. 
In writing to them afterward, he says that Christ was 
set forth before them as vividly as if they themselves 
had seen him crucified. Gal. ili, 1. He thus won his 
way into their hearts, and the bodily sufferings under 
which he labored completed the conquest of their 
sympathies. He was to them as an angel, even as 
Christ Jesus, and their growing enthusiasm soon 
knew no bounds. “I bear you record,” says the 
Apostle, in recalling that happy time, “ that if it had 
been possible ye would have plucked out your own 
eyes, and given them to me.” Gal. iv, 15. But this 
quick sensibility to impressions might be as easily 
turned in an opposite direction, and he was soon to 
learn to his cost the vacillation of these impetuous 
natures. 

The mission in Galatia seems a sort of preparation 
for the transition into Europe. The time had come 
for Paul to set his foot on the classic ground of phi- 
losophy and ancient art. For entering on a field 
of labor so wide and so new, a direct call from God 
was necessary. Paul was preparing to pursue his 
mission in Asia, when he was turned aside by a very 
remarkable vision. A man of Macedonia appeared 
to him, saying, ‘Come over into Macedonia, and help 
us!”” This man was the representative of those 
powerful nations of the West which had accom- 
plished such great things, and agitated such great 


150 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


thoughts in the domain of politics, and of free specu- 
lation, and which now, growing old and feeble, writh- 
ing in the restlessness of doubt at the foot of their 
world-famous altars of art and beauty, were turning 
tired eyes toward the East, seeking there a deliver- 
ance of which they had no longer any hope in them- 
selves. This cry, Come over and help us! was it not 
the groaning of Greece, enslaved and fallen? and did 
not the same despairing entreaty come up from all 
quarters of the Roman empire? Was not the strange 
yearning of the West toward the religions of the 
East itself an unspoken prayer for help? This, then, 
was a favorable moment for carrying the Gospel into 
Europe. The ruler of the world at this period was 
Claudius, the puppet of mistresses and favorites, who 
had laid upon the whole empire a yoke of deepest 
humiliation, because the slavery imposed was accom- 
panied with no redeeming ray of glory. Neither by 
the arts of peace or war did Claudius achieve any 
thing honorable to himself or to the world. Under 
this condition of things, the historians of the time 
describe the deepening agitation of men’s minds, ever 
in restless quest of the new. The sick man turns 
upon his bed in feverish impatience, and seeks in 
religions beyond his own new medicines for the 
soul’s long malady.* But in spite of such favoring 
dispositions, the preaching of the Gospel would have 
to encounter in Europe a host of obstacles. The re- 
fined culture of ancient Greece, ever devoted to the 
worship of form, idolatrous of beauty alike in lan- 
guage and in art—the terrible corruption of manners 
—the political and religious despotism of Rome, 


* ‘Tacitus, ** Annals,” xi, 15. 


BOOK ΤΠ ὙΠ CENTURY. 151 


which, with its marvelous organization, had agencies 
in every city, large or small, to discover and to im- 
pede any hostile movement—such were some of the 
main obstacles in the path of the missionary of 
Christ. But Paul was not the man to shrink before 
them ; and there was power enough in the doctrine . 
which he preached to triumph over philosophers and 
rulers, over human force and human science. 

It was at Troas Paul had the vision which de- 
cided him to go over into Macedonia. It was also 
at Troas he associated with himself another helper— 
Luke, the physician, who was to be the inspired 
chronicler of the apostolic age. Luke was, accord- 
ing to Eusebius,* a native of Antioch, ‘and in all 
probability a Gentile by birth, and one of the Apos- 
tle’s converts. We shall find him henceforward con- 
stantly by Paul's side, his companion in prison and 
up to the eve of martyrdom. None caught more 
thoroughly than he the spirit of the Apostle; none 
was more capable of.truly representing his life, and 
preserving to us the features of that noble form. 
The legend which speaks of him as a painter, only 
errs by clothing a moral quality in a material form. 
Luke shows himself a true and inimitable painter 
in his representation of the Christians of the first 
century. 

From Troas Paul went by Neapolis to Philippi. 
This city, built by Philip II., on the borders of Mace- 
donia and Thrace, and rendered illustrious by the 
famous battle in which the Roman republic finally 
succumbed under Brutus, had become a flourishing 
Roman colony, the most important in the whole 


* Eusebius, ‘* Hist. Eccles.,”’ ili, 4. 
> | 3 


152 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


country.* It was governed, like all the colonies, by 
magistrates called decemvirs, who exercised all the 
rights of sovereignty in minor causes. They had 
lictors at their command.t 

In entering on this new field, the work of Chris- 
tian missions was coming into collision not simply 
with Jewish fanaticism, or popular superstition as in 
Asia, but with the Roman administration, so admi- 
rably constructed for the universal suppression of 
liberty. Immediately on arriving at Philippi, Paul 
repairs to the river side, where the Jews were accus- 
tomed to assemble every Sabbath. There he found 
only a few women. To these he preached the Gos- 
pel with all his wonted earnestness and power ; and 
in the house of one of them, Lydia, a seller of purple 
from Thyatira, the first nucleus was formed of that 
Church which was to be the jewel in his apostolic 
crown. Into this humble family there soon came a 
poor servant-girl, whose condition sheds light upon 
the paganism of that day. The mysterious malady, 
known as possession, was not peculiar to fudea. In 
this time of momentous crisis, the intervention of the 
powers of the unseen world was more than usually 
direct and sensible. It seems as if the barrier be- 
tween that world and ours was broken down. The 
evil spirits, whose existence is so clearly revealed in 
the New Testament, act at such epochs in a special 
manner on persons predisposed to their influence by 
an unhealthy moral and physical condition. Natural 
phenomena, such as somnambulism, assume a pecul- 


* This is the most natural sense to attach to the words: ἥτις ἐστὲν 
πρώτη. 
+ Στρατηγοῖς (Acts xvi, 20) ῥαβδοῦχοι. 


BOGE ἘΞ ΞΡ CENTURY. 153 


iar character, and are aggravated by the addition of 
actual possession. The girl healed by Paul was the 
subject of this diabolical somnambulism. She had 
some gifts of divination, like somnambulists in all 
ages. Her fellow-citizens, therefore, regarded her as 
possessed with the spirit of Python, which was one 
of the names of Apollo, the god of oracles. But in 
addition to this gift of divination, there was in her 
case positive possession, as is clear from the lan- 
guage of Paul, who commands the evil spirit to come 
out of her. As the unhappy girl follows Paul and 
Silas about the streets, crying, “These men are the 
servants of the most high God, which show unto 
you the way of salvation,” (Acts xvi, 17,) the Apostle, 
who will not receive demoniacal support at any price, 
heals the girl. This becomes the occasion of a violent 
persecution. The masters of the sick girl, enraged 
at the loss of the gains they made by her divination, 
stir up the populace, and drag Paul and Silas before 
the decemvirs, charging them with introducing into 
the city a religion not sanctioned by the laws. The 
magistrates yield to the popular clamor: they throw 
the accused into prison, and the jailer, the pliant 
instrument of the fury of the crowd, casts them into 
a dark dungeon, and makes their feet fast in the 
stocks. A long and painful night begins; but the 
prisoners feel free and happy in their chains. ‘“ That 
gloomy prison,” to use the language of Tertullian, 
“was to them what the desert was to the prophets— 
a holy retreat ; one of those solitary places in which 
by preference Christ reveals his glory to his disciples. 
While their body was in fetters, their soul, sublimely 
free in spite of grating doors and guarded passages, 


153. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


was pressing on the way to God. The flesh feels no 
ill when the spirit is in heaven.” * They are singing 
at midnight the praises of God. Suddenly an earth- 
quake bursts the prison doors. The terrified jailer, 
fearing the retribution awaiting him if his prisoners 
escape, draws his sword to kill himself. The voice 
of Paul arrests him. ‘Do thyself no harm,” cries 
the Apostle, “for we are all here.” The soul of the 
rough man is moved by the generosity of these strange 
prisoners, who thus return good for evil. The sight 
of Paul and Silas rejoicing in their chains has already 
touched his conscience. Words which, doubtless, he 
had previously heard from their lips receive a new 
significance; in place of the dread of man, there 
springs up in his heart fear of the judgment of God. 
There is a convulsion in his inner nature correspond- 
ing to the convulsion in the world without, and he 
utters that cry of the broken heart whose salvation 
is nigh, “ What must I do to be saved?” We know 
the Apostles’ reply. The jailer and his family at 
once receive the sign of the new birth, and the 
Church of the Philippians gains a noble victory in 
the very place in which its founder was to have been 
consigned to ignominy and silence. 

Paul’s imprisonment had been the result of a 
tumult of the people. His cause had not been tried. 
The decemvirs having, like other Roman magistrates, 
but little leaning to religious fanaticism, now send 
their lictors to bring the Apostles out of the prison. 
But Paul protests indignantly against the unlawful 


* Προ preestat carcer Christiano quod eremus prophetis. Nihil 
crus sentit in neryo, cum animus in ceelo est.” (Tertullian, ‘Ad 
Martyres,”’ c. ii.) 


BOOK fE-—FIRST CENTURY. 155 


treatment they have received. He boldly declares 
himself a Roman citizen—a name which, according 
to Cicero, casts a shield of protection over all who 
could use it to the uttermost parts of the world, and 
even in the midst of barbarous nations.* The Porcia 
lex forbade the beating with rods of a Roman citizen. 
The magistrates, alarmed at such a message, came 
themselves to release the Apostles; and we learn 
from the example of Paul on this occasion to rise 
above the narrow and petty notions which interdict 
Christians from boldly asserting their rights as citi- 
zens. Such views tend, in their practical issue, to 
sap the whole divine basis of society. 

Paul left at Philippi a Church which had received 
the baptism of persecution, and which was strength- 
ened in its attachment to his person by witnessing 
his courageous endurance of suffering. 

Of this attachment the Philippian Church soon 
gave him touching proof, by sending generous aid to 
him at Thessalonica, whither he had gone to carry 
the Gospel. Phil. iv, 16. He had hastily passed 
through Amphipolis and Apollonia in order to reach 
this important city. It had been built by Cassander, 
who had given to it the name of his wife. Standing 
at the base of a mountain, not far from the sea, it 
was the capital of the second district of the province 
of Macedonia. It had become very flourishing under 
the Romans, especially by its commerce, and the 
Jews, who had flocked to it in large numbers, had 
there built a synagogue. Paul preached the Gospel 
to them three Sabbath days, and some of them 


* “Tila vox et imploratio: Civis Romanus sum! spe multis in 
ultimis terris opem-inter barbaros et salutem tulit.” 


156 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


believed, and consorted with the Apostle. But the 
preaching was much more successful among the 
Greeks. Paul, in his first Epistle to the Thessa- 
lonians, gives an admirable account of his mission 
among them. He came to them, as we there see, 
still bearing in body and spirit the wounds he had 
received at Philippi. 1 Thess. ii, 2. The fanatical 
Jews at Thessalonica soon again kindled the flame 
of persecution against him, and it was evident he 
would find no respite or peace. In the midst of many 
conflicts, therefore, his ministry was accomplished ; 
but his courage never faltered, and the power of God 
was magnified in his servant’s weakness. 1 Thess. i, 5. 
Enfeebled by suffering, he yet proves irresistible in 
his arguments with the unbelieving Jews. But his 
own experience of much affliction has given a deep- 
ened gentleness to his ministry, and full of tenderness 
for souls scarcely escaped out of heathen darkness, 
he cherishes them “even as a nurse her children.” 
iibhess.cn;; 7.-.> ΕΠ finds. in. these“ Thessalonians 
much readiness to receive the truth, and a childlike 
enthusiasm for the new religion, very beautiful, and 
productive of the happiest results while restrained 
within bounds by his presence, but dangerously akin 
to fanaticism. Hence the earnest warnings in his 
Epistles to the new converts not to neglect the ful- 
fillment of their daily duties, in undue impatience of 
all the trammels of earthly life. 

These ardent young Christians displayed heroic 
courage in the conflict stirred up by the Jews. 1 Thess. 
i, 6. Paul was probably led by the persecutions which 
burst so rapidly upon this newly-formed Church to 
dwell much on the glorious issues of Christianity, the 


\ 


BOOK II.-—FIRST. CENTURY. 157 


triumph of the Lord, and his near return. 1 Thess. 
ΤΣ . 

It was, indeed, a terrible storm which broke over 
the Church at Thessalonica. Paul’s implacable ad- 
versaries hired men of low character, who by their 
calumnies of the Apostle set all the city in an up- 
roar. Wresting the words he had spoken with refer- 
ence to the kingdom of Christ and his speedy coming 
to reign, (Acts xvii, 7,) they accused him before the 
Praetor of conspiring against Caesar. They thus took 
advantage at once of the Roman law, and of the pas- 
sions of the people—a cunning proceeding which 
proved only too successful. 

When they could not find either Paul or Silas, 
they assaulted the house of an inhabitant of the city, 
named Jason, who, being probably a convert through 
their preaching, had received them into his house. 
The magistrates committed Jason to prison, and he 
was only released on giving bail. The Apostles were 
sent away by their friends by night to Berea, a town 
about ten miles distant from Thessalonica. Here 
they met with a better reception from the Jews ; they 
even gained some adherents in the upper classes of 
society. Acts xvii, 12. But the synagogue of Thes- 
salonica, irritated by a course of conduct, which in 
its eyes seemed only wicked obstinacy, contrived to 
stir up the Berean populace also against Paul and 
Silas. Some devoted friends conducted Paul at once 
to Athens, while Silas, Timothy, and the rest of their 
company, remained for awhile behind. 

What Athens was to the ancient world is well 
known. “From Athens,” says Cicero, ‘“ philosophy 
and religion, agriculture and laws, have gone forth 


158 EARLY YEARS- OF -THE-CHRISTIANZCHURCH, 


into the whole world.”* At Athens paganism had 
attained all the perfection of which it was capable. 
The religion of Greece, which was a religion of artists, 
since its essence was the worship of the beautiful, 
had there found its best interpreters in the great 
sculptors, whose immortal works were the embodi- 
ment of ideal beauty. In strange paradox, it was 
also at Athens that paganism had been more deeply 
undermined by philosophy. Socrates and Plato had 
there taught the adoration of a deity more adapted 
than the Olympian Jupiter to meet the demands of 
conscience. Nor must we forget that not far from 
Athens were celebrated the Eleusinian Mysteries, so 
closely connected with the worship of the divinities, 
who, according to the belief of the Greeks, had the 
control of death and of the judgment of the soul after 
the earthly life. The secret source of this worship 
was the vague dread of eternity, and the feeling of 
the insufficiency of a purely esthetic religion to 
lighten the dark abode of death. 

The Athenian people were more concerned than 
most to appease the gods. Philostratus puts these 
words into the mouth of Apollonius of Tyana: “It is 
wise to speak well of all the gods, especially at Ath- 
ens.’ } This disposition had grown, as Greek poly- 
theism had falien into deeper and deeper decay. In 
its subjection to the Romans, the brilliant city was at 
once more frivolous and more devout than ever before. 
The rostrum was voiceless ; the great poets had been 
succeeded by frigid versifiers. The places of Plato 


* <¢Unde humanitas, doctrina, religio, fruges, jura, leges, artes in 
omnes terras distribute putantur.” (Cicero, “ Pro Flacco,” 26, 62. 
7 > 3 
(ς ὌΠ 1 - ᾽) 7 . 
τ Bhwlasiss” tvizrs: 


BOOK FIE——PIkS ΕΝ ΕΥ. 159 


and Aristotle were filled by feeble philosophers. 
While the Epicurean mocked at the gods, the Stoic 
asserted the uselessness of metaphysics. The Athe- 
nian people, indolent and skeptical, lounged about 
the public places, seeking to beguile their ignoble 
leisure, but chafed all the while in spirit by a rest- 
lessness that would not be allayed. 

Such were the conflicting influences at work when 
the great Apostle arrived in Athens. As he passed 
along the streets of the queenly city, where the 
masterpieces of pagan art met his eye at every step. 
a sacred sadness seized his soul, and he eagerly de- 
sired to preach Christ to these poor idolators. After 
having proclaimed the Gospel in the synagogue, he 
sought access to the Epicurean and Stoic philos- 
ophers. The Athenians, whose curiosity was easily 
excited, brought him to the Areopagus, to hear him 
speak of these new gods. It has been erroneously 
imagined that Paul was arraigned by the Athenians, 
and that his address was a defense of himself rather 
than a general apology for Christianity. He was in- 
deed taken to the spot, where causes were custom- 
arily tried, but it was only that he might more easily 
harangue a large assembly. Paul had before him the 
marvelous Acropolis, adorned with the miracles of 
the chisel of Phidias ; above him the temple of The- 
seus, the most ancient monument in Athens; and 
wherever his eye turned, it rested on the altars of 
false gods. It is worth observing, that the temples 
which were nearest to him, in the Areopagus itself, 
were dedicated to those subterranean deities which 
inspired so much terror in the Greeks, and which 
expressed the protest of outraged conscience against 


160 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHUREH. 


the too facile poetry of their state religion. These 
temples were, in fact, according to Pausanias, de- 
voted to the Furies and to Pluto.* The worship of 
these terrible and mysterious deities implicitly con- 
tained an acknowledgment of the unknown God. It 
is of little consequence whether the famous inscrip- 
tion, which the Apostle makes his starting-point, 
really had all the significance which he seems to 
ascribe to it. It was, in any case, a faithful expres- 
sion of one aspect of Greek polytheism, and he had 
a perfect right so to make use of it. 

The testimony of Pausanias and of Philostratus 
confirms that of St. Paul as to this inscription.t Of 
all the interpretations which have been given of it, 
the most plausible appears to us to be that of Diog- 
enes Laértius. He says, that in the time of a plague, 
when men knew not which God to propitiate in order 
to avert it, Epimenides caused black and white sheep 
to be let loose from the Areopagus, and wherever 
they lay down, to be offered to the respective divini- 
ties. “Hence it comes,” says Diogenes Laértius, 
“that altars are still found in Athens which do not 
bear the name of any known god.’ ¢ This fear of 
neglecting angry and unknown gods clearly revealed 
that in the hearts entertaining it there was a deep 

* <¢ Pausanias,” p. 27; Xylander Edit. 

t+ Βωμοὶ θεῶν ὀνομαζομένων ἀγνώστων. Pausanias, i, 1; Philos- 
tratus, vl, 3. 

1 Diog. Laértius, ‘‘ Epimenides,”’ i, 1. St. Jerome says that the 
inscription was thus worded: ‘‘ Diis Asiz et Europze et Africze, Diis 
ignotis et peregrinis.” (“ἈΠ Tit.,” i, 12.) But this opinion has no 
solid ground. Eichhorn maintains that it referred to an ancient god, 
whose name was lost. This opinion might be accepted if we had 


not the explicit testimony of Diogenes Laértius. (See De Wette’s 
“Comm. on the Acts,” in which the question is admirably treated.) 


77) 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. τότ 


consciousness of the insufficiency of their religion ; 
for if they had truly believed in the gods they knew, 
they would have been assured that when these were 
appeased there was nothing more to dread. But they 
had a vague conception that another yet more power- 
ful deity was angry with them. The worship of the 
subterranean gods took its rise in the same con- 
sciousness. “That they had reared an altar to an 
unknown god,” says Calvin, “was a sign that they 
knew nothing certainly. It is true they had an in- 
finite multitude of gods, but when with these they 
associated unknown gods, they by that act confessed 
that they knew nothing of the true Deity.” * 

It is not our purpose here to analyze Paul's ad- 
dress ; we shall treat of that when he comes to speak 
of his doctrine. It is impossible not to notice, how- 
ever, the skill with which he finds the point of con- 
tact between the truth and his hearers. Observing 
their extraordinary devotion, he traces it to its prin- 
ciple—the deep necessity felt by the human heart of 
union with God. He reads on the altars of paganism 
the avowal of its impotence, and he borrows the 
words of a pagan poet to show how grand is man in 
his origin, and how infinite are his aspirations. That 
living and true God, whom they in their ignorance 
are feeling after, has just revealed himself in an 
amazing manner by the gift of his Son; and faith in 
the Christ is the one way of escape from the terrible 
judgment which awaits the unpardoned sinner at the 
resurrection day. The Greeks listened to the Apostle 
so long as he confined himself to philosophic gener- 
alities, but they could not endure the faintest allusion 


* Calvin, ‘‘ Commentaries,” vol. ii, p. 798, Paris edition. 1854. 


162 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


to a judgment to come. The doctrine of immortality 
was contrary alike to the pantheism of the Stoics and 
to the atheism of the Epicureans. It was natural 
that Greek paganism, on its first contact with the 
severe religion of Jesus Christ, should elude its ap- 
peals, and seek refuge in graceful frivolity. The 
Greek feels no indignation; he does not persecute 
like the synagogue; he simply returns with a scorn- 
ful smile to the diversions of the public square—a 
striking illustration of the distance which divides 
mere intellectual curiosity from a serious love of 
truth. The bow, however, so steadily drawn by the 
Apostle, has not been ineffectual. The true wor- 
shiper of the “unknown god” perceives that, in truth, 
this God whom Paul declares to them is He; and 
among the new disciples, one is a judge of the Are- 
opagus. In the metropolis of paganism, Paul has 
spoken words mightier and more beautiful than any 
which had ever fallen from the lips of philosophers 
or poets—words which will be a living power when 
temples and statues are in ruins. Their ruin is in- 
deed already imminent. In preaching the true God, 
Paul has pronounced the death-doom of polytheism, 
and the sentence is without appeal. 

From Athens Paul repaired to Corinth. This city, 
washed by two seas, the Ionian and the A®gean, 
united, through the activity of its commerce, the 
pomp and luxury of Asia with the civilization of 
Greece. It had been celebrated in all ancient times 
for the cultivation of the arts and sciences.* De- 
stroyed by Mummius, 146 years before Christ, it had 
been rebuilt by Julius Caesar, and had become the 


* Herodotus πα τόν: 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 163 


capital of Achaia. Corinth, at the period when Paul 
visited it, had recovered all its ancient splendor. It 
surpassed even Athens ; for while the city of Pericles 
represented the most exalted side of paganism—pure 
and noble art, great philosophy and great poetry— 
Corinth represented its material and voluptuous side ; 
and such luster is ever the most conspicuous in an 
age of decay.* Its beautiful climate, its wealth, the 
extraordinary concourse of foreigners within its walls, 
all contributed to the corruption of manners. Thus, 
amid the licentious cities of the old world, Corinth 
was distinguished for its immorality. The worship 
of Aphrodite was there observed in all its shameless- 
ness. To live like a Corinthian was a proverbial ex- 
pression for a career of debauchery. What a miracle 
was the foundation of a Church in such a city! 
Paul's labors here commenced less brilliantly than at 
Athens. He began by working in the shade. His 
first converts were a humble family of Jews, fugitives 
from Rome, in consequence of the decree of banish- 
ment issued by Claudius against their nation.  Pris- 
cilla and Aquila were fellow-countrymen of the Apos- 
tle’s, coming, like him, from Pontus ; like him, they 
also maintained themselves by making tents of the 
substantial fabrics of their country. A close friend- 
ship arose between them ; Paul lodged under their 
roof, and supported himself by working with them. 
Not for a day, however, did he lose sight of his mis- 
sionary work. Every Sabbath he went up to the 
synagogue, and in the interval he preached the Gos- 
pel to the Gentiles. It is evident, from his first 
Epistle to the Corinthians, that he addressed himself 


* Lange, work quoted, ii, 233. 


164 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


chiefly to the lower orders of society. 1 Cor. i, 26. 
He had not here a brilliant auditory, as on the Are- 
opagus ; he did not see the first magistrates and 
philosophers of the city thronging around him. He 
presented the truth to the Corinthians in all its 
naked simplicity ; he would not pander to the tastes 
of the degenerate Greeks, enamored of human elo- 
quence and outward show. “My speech and my 
preaching,’ he subsequently says, “ was not with en- 
ticing words of man’s wisdom.” 1 Cor. ii, 4. The 
simple setting forth of the Cross was the substance 
of his teaching. Oppressed, as he may well have 
been, by the sight of the enormities of paganism 
shamelessly enacted before his eyes, he tells us that 
he preached the Gospel in weakness, and in fear, and 
in much trembling. 1 Cor. ii, 3. Nevertheless, he 
gained many adherents, and, among others, Steph- 
anas, Crispus, and Gaius. 1 Cor. xvi, 15 ; I Cor. i, 14. 
The Jews at Corinth, with a few exceptions, offered 
him an obstinate resistance ; he was even constrained 
to an open rupture with them. He separated him- 
self from them, after addressing them in terrible 
words of denunciation, justly provoked by their blas- 
phemies ; and he founded a true synagogue in the 
house of a disciple named Justus, where he continued 
to preach. His discourses produced such an effect 
that the chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue was won 
to the Gospel. The Apostle did not in general bap- 
tize the new Christians, leaving this duty to his com- 
panions, or to the elders of the young Church. He 
was no representative of an ecclesiastical hierarchy, 
which makes it its first concern to initiate men into 
outward observances ; he was concerned solely with 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 165 


the moral and religious effect of his teaching, leaving 
aside as subordinate all questions of form. 

After he had thus preached the Gospel during a 
year and a half, the Jews, taking advantage of the 
arrival of a new proconsul, accused him of professing 
a strange and unauthorized religion. Happily for 
Paul, this proconsul was a man of a tolerant and en- 
lightened disposition ; he was Gallio, brother of the 
famous Seneca, by whom he was declared to be the 
mildest of men.* He refused, with the disdain of a 
lettered Roman, to interfere in these questions of 
religion, which appeared to him all miserable chi- 
canery. He shared the proud contempt of his coun- 
trymen for the Jews, and he did not scruple to leave 
Paul’s accusers to the violence of the inhabitants of 
the city, who held them and all their race in abomi- 
nation. Paul soon after quitted Corinth. It was 
from this city that he wrote his two Epistles to the 
Church of Thessalonica.t Timotheus and Silas, 
who rejoined the Apostle at Corinth, brought him 
news from Thessalonica, and their communications 
led him to write, warning that Church against such 
an undue preoccupation with the prophetic aspect of 
revelation as might lead into error. 

Paul, before leaving Corinth, had his head shaved, 

*<«* Nemo mortalium unus tam dulcis est quam hic omnibus.”’  (Sen- 
eca, ** Pref. Natur. Quest.,” I, iv. 

+ Reuss, ‘‘ Geschichte der Heilig. Schrift., N. T.,”? pp. 67, 68. It 
has been erroneously stated that the first epistle was dated from 
Athens ; but thisis not possible. Wesee, in fact, (1 Thess. i, 7,) that 
the Churches of Achaia are spoken of. The passage in 1 Thess. ii, 18, 
also implies that some time had elapsed between the journey of Paul to 
Thessalonica and the date of the letter. Baur’s objections to the 
genuineness of the second epistle are entirely dogmatic and of no 
critical value, 


166 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


in fulfillment of a vow made some time previously. 
We cannot but wonder to see the great Apostle of 
the Gentiles submitting to this legal observance. 
We must not forget, however, that this was an age 
of transition, and that Judaism was only gradually 
vanishing before Christianity, as shadows before the 
sun. Paul, also, while he borrowed an ancient cus- 
tom from the religion of his fathers, did so not as 
under the yoke of Mosaic observances, but in the use 
of his Christian liberty. While holding as a funda- 
mental principle that the whole life is one act of 
worship, and that whatever is done must be done 
unto the Lord, he yet admitted a sort of individual dis- 
cipline, by which portions of the life, characterized 
by greater austerity than the rest, might be set aside, 
so that the soul, freed from the fetters of the mate- 
rial, might the more readily rise into a purer region, 
1 Cor. vii, 5. The vow of the Nazarite, so common 
among the Jews, seemed to St. Paul the faithful sym- 
bol of this exceptional consecration of a portion of 
his life to God. This vow enforced, as we know, ab- 
stinence for a time from all fermented drinks, and 
the free growing of the hair uncut. Those who were 
under the vow were regarded as specially consecrated 
to God. Num. vi, 1-8. Commentators have been 
much perplexed by the fact that Paul had his head 
shorn at Cenchrza, and not in the temple at Jerusa- 
lem, according to Mosaic prescription.* For our- 
selves, we regard this deviation from Jewish ritual as 
in perfect harmony with his principles ; he felt no 
scruple in modifying legal practices, because he held 


* « And the Nazauite shall shave the head of his separation at the 
door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” (Num. vi, 18.) 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 167 


himself to be under the law of liberty. The Apostle, 
who, writing some months later to the Corinthians, 
says, “ Know ye not that your body is the temple of 
the Holy Ghost?” (1 Cor. vi, 19,) and who, conse- 
quently, no longer believed in the existence of any 
particular sanctuary, was thus raised above all the 
ordinances which had reference to the temple. He 
felt himself as fully at liberty to have his head shorn 
at Corinth as at Jerusalem, if circumstances rendered 
it desirable. He thus vindicated the voluntary self- 
discipline of his religious life from the appearance of 
a timid subservience to ritual law.* 

From Corinth, Paul went to Ephesus, with Aquila 
and Priscilla. After a short stay, he left them there, 
and himself went up, by way of Czesarea, to Jerusa- 
lem, there to keep the Feast of Pentecost.t He did 


* The vow of Paul has been the subject of long and confused dis- 
putations. It has been maintained, first, that the vow was not made 
by him, but by Aquila; but the adjective κειρώμένος evidently refers 
to the principal subject of the sentence. Neander, (‘‘ Pflanz.,” 1, 348) 
resting on a passage of Josephus, (“‘ De Bello Judaico,” ii, 15,) sup- 
poses a modification of the vow of the Nazarite among the Jews of 
that period ; but the passage of Josephus does not at all signify that 
the head was shaved elsewhere than in the temple. Lange maintains 
that Paul had his head shorn before quitting the Gentile lands, in 
order that his new growth of hair might be undefiled ; but such a 
notion is utterly at variance with Paul’s principles. Baumgarten 
(ii, 326, 327) makes unfair use of the symbolical manner in which the 
Apostle speaks of the long hair of a woman, (1 Cor. xi, 19,) and sees 
in St. Paul’s vow a token of his spirit of humility and submission ; but 
this is a forced and over-subtle explanation. As to the idea of Sal- 
masius, that what is here meant is some such vow as those spoken of 
by Juvenal, (Satire xii, 815,) which consisted in devoting the hair of 
the head to the Deity, it is utterly baseless. 

+ Paul goes up by sea to Jerusalem, Now the inexperience of 
navigation would render such a voyage impossible in the spring. The 
feast to be observed could not, therefore, have been the Passover ; 


168 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


not stay either there or at Ephesus, but returned to 
Antioch, whence he had twice gone forth on his 
great missionary journeys. During his sojourn at 
Jerusalem and at Antioch, Aquila and Priscilla heard 
at Ephesus of a Jewish stranger who was producing 
a deep impression by his discourses in the synagogue. 
This was Apollos, who was to play so important a 
part in the early Church, and whose influence at 
Corinth was to rival even that of St. Paul. He came 
from Alexandria, where he had heard the learned 
teachers who endeavored to fuse and harmonize the 
Mosaic religion with the Greek philosophy. From 
this school he had doubtless acquired much aptitude 
in penetrating into the meaning of sacred symbols. 
He had probably gained some knowledge of the new 
religion in a recent journey in Palestine ; but he had, 
as yet, very elementary notions of the Gospel, for he 
had come in contact only with disciples of John the 
Baptist, and had received only the baptism of John. 
He succeeded, however, even with these imperfect 
lights, in convincing the Jews at Ephesus. He was 
a man nobly gifted, deeply versed in the -sacred 
Scriptures, full of fervor and enthusiasm,* courage- 
ous,t and possessed of remarkable oratorical power, 
which he had been able freely to exercise in one of 
the great centers of Greek civilization.t From 
Aquila and Priscilla Apollos learned the way of 
truth more perfectly ; and thus furnished, he went at 
once to Corinth, where his eloquence§ produced an 


and of the other Jewish festivals, the Pentecost alone would have a 
religious interest for such a man as Paul. 

* Δυνατὸς ὧν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς. Ἷ Ζέων τῷ πνεύματι. 

{ Ἤρξατο παῤῥησιάζεσθαι. 8 Δόγιος. Acts xviii, 24, 28. 


BOOK? ΞΡ CENTURY. 169 


unparalleled effect. We shall soon meet with him 
again, and shall see how party spirit, without Apollos’ 
own concurrence, wrested his noble gifts to the dis- 
advantage of Paul, whose language had neither the 
correctness nor the beauty of that of the young doc- 
tor of Alexandria. The author of the Epistle to the } 


Ι 


Hebrews is, nevertheless, perfectly in harmony with | 
the Apostle Paul, though acting, according to the | 


custom of the apostolic age, with complete independ- } 
etice:* 


SII. Third Missionary Fourney of St. Paul. 


Paul began his third missionary journey by visiting 
the Churches he had founded in Phrygia and Galatia. 
He had the grief of finding that in the latter country, 
where he had been so readily received, his adversa- 
ries had succeeded in partially nullifying his influence 
and in giving currency to Pharisaic legalism. He 
went on to Ephesus, sorrowful and wounded by 
signs so unexpected of ingratitude and changeableness. 
His first care was to write a letter to the Churches 
of Galatia. Every line evidences the painful surprise 
he felt at being thus distrusted by those who had 
at first devoted themselves to him with enthusiastic 
affection. 

Ephesus now became the principal center of his 
apostolic work. No other city could have been 
chosen so well adapted to be the focus from which 
light might radiate over the whole of Asia. The 
capital of ancient Ionia, it had been the cradle of 


* See, with reference to Apollos, Bleek, ‘‘ Brief an die Hebreer,” 
i, 422. 


{ 


170 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


that famous Ionian civilization, which, transplanted 
into Greece, and correcting the effeminacy of East- 
' ern manners by the moral energy of the West, while 
retaining all the flexibility and brilliancy of the 
Greek genius, had found full and harmonious devel- 
opment at Athens. At Ephesus, situated not far 
from the A®gean sea, between Smyrna and Miletus, 
the oriental type predominated ; but it had also come 
under the influence of the West, by the numerous 
communications maintained through its commerce 
with Greece. It had, however, faithfully adhered to 
the worship of the old gods of Asia; the only change 
it had made was to give the name of Diana to the 
Astarte or Artemis of the Asiatic religions. These, 
as is well known, consisted substantially in a volup- 
tuous adoration of nature; and sensuality was an 
element inseparable from their religious rites. The 
temple of Diana of the Ephesians was of world-wide 
celebrity. Burned by Erostratus, it had been rebuilt 
with greater magnificence. Pausanius declares no 
other temple could be compared to it for grandeur ;* 
the glory of Diana of Ephesus threw into the shade 
all the other divinities of the East and West. Ata 
time of crisis, when all eyes were turned toward the 
East, a divinity which formed a sort of link between 
the religions of the East and West could not fail to 
acquire extensive popularity. It was said that the 
statue of the goddess had come down from heaven ; 
it was carved in wood, rough and ungraceful, like the 
mummies of Egypt. It was customary among the 
pagans to carry about with them small images of the 

*Méyebog τοῦ ναοῦ τὰ παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις κατασκεύασματ 
ὑπερηκότος. (Pausanias, p. 141.) 


BOOK 1I.——-FIRSFE CENTURY. ΤᾺ 


temples in which they worshiped ;* thus the making 
of shrines had become a very large and profitable 
trade. The people of Ephesus were distinguished 
for their love of pleasure. ‘The whole city,” says 
Philostratus, “resounded with the music of flutes ac- 
companying the dance, and the streets were full of 
men disguised as women.”} The corruption of man- 
ners had here reached its climax. 

Ephesus was, like Corinth, and to a greater degree 
than Antioch, ene of the centers of the pagan world, 
where all sects and all opinions met and came into 
collision. There, as in all the large cities, was a 
Jewish synagogue ; in this Paul preached for three 
months ; but here, as at Corinth, he came to an open 
rupture with his countrymen, and abandoned the 
struggle with the invincible obduracy of the Pharisaic 
spirit. He continued to teach the Gospel in the 
house of one Tyrannus, a public teacher of rhetoric, 
who had a school at Ephesus, and who had doubtless 
been convinced of the folly of his system by the 
preaching of the Apostle. Thus Christianity gained 
a readier victory in a school of pagan literature than 
in the school of the doctors of the law; and those 
who read Moses and the prophets showed themselves 
less prepared to receive the Gospel than the Greeks, 
nurtured on Homer, Hesiod, and Pindar. So true is 
it, that external revelation is a dead-letter to those 
whose hearts are hardened. 

Besides the unbelieving Jews of the synagogue, 


ἘΦ Asclepiades philosophus deze ccelestis argenteum breve figmentum 
quecumque ibat secum solitus efferre.’ (Ammianus Marcellinus, 
2G, ¥3.) 

1 Philostratus, ‘‘ Vita Apoll.,”’ iv, 2. 


172 “EARLY YEARS*OF THE’ CHRISTIAN ΘΗ ΕΘΗ: 


Paul met at Ephesus with some proselytes, who were 
in a singular position. They had been among the 
multitudes who flocked to the baptism of repentance 
administered by John in the river Jordan. They 
had heard of the miracles of Christ, and had recog- 
nized him as the true Messiah, without, however, 
getting beyond the point of view of their first master, 
the Baptist. They had left Palestine before the res- 
urrection of the Saviour, and knew nothing of the 
great facts upon which the Church was founded ; 
they were still in the position of the disciples before 
the Feast of Pentecost. The germ of faith in their 
hearts rapidly sprang and grew under the teaching 
of Paul; they soon received the symbol of the new 
birth, and the Holy Spirit marked his presence in 
their midst by signs and wonders. 

There was also a third class of Jews at Ephesus. 
These were exorcists, who worked on the credulity 
and eager expectations of the people, and endeavored, 
like Simon of Samaria and Elymas of Cyprus, to 
make gain by sorcery. They attempted to cast out 
devils by the repetition of mysterious formulas, which 
they ascribed to Solomon.* They succeeded some- 
times in producing a certain impression on the dis- 
eased imaginations of the sufferers from possession, 
but their cures were not lasting; had they been so 
they would certainly have set them in the balance, 
against the miracles wrought by the Apostles. 
Some of these magicians, seeing the miracles which 
Paul worked in the name of Christ, imagined he 
had the secret of some more efficacious formula than 

*Kai αὕτη μέχρι viv παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ἢ θεραπεία πλεῖστον ἰσχύει. (Jose- 
phus, ‘‘ Ant.,” viii, 2. See Olshausen, “‘Comment.,” i, 400.) 


BOOK II.— FIRST CENTURY. 173 


those they were in the habit of using. They endeay- 
ored to cast out the demons in the same manner, 
pronouncing, like the Apostle, the sacred name of 
Jesus. Their attempt proved a miserable failure. 
The unhappy man upon whom they made the experi- 
ment, in one of those mysterious crises of supernatural 
lucidity common to such cases, cried out, “ Jesus I 
know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?” and, 
leaping on the false exorcists with demoniacal 
strength, wounded and overcame them. The powers 
of darkness are not to be vanquished by words and 
formularies ; they yield only to a divine influence, 
passing from soul to soul. 

This incident in the history of Paul draws a well- 
marked line of distinction between miracle and magic.* 
The event had a very happy effect upon the Greek 
proselytes, who were already attracted by the Gospel, 
but were not yet free from their superstitions. Ephe- 
sus was, indeed, famous for the practice of the arts of 
sorcery; Apollonius of Tyana there excited the 
greatest enthusiasm. If Paul wrought more miracles 
in this than on his other missions, it was because no 
other method would have been equally effectual in 
arresting the attention of so corrupt and idolatrous a 
city. The lesson thus severely taught the Jewish 
exorcists was further of use in preventing any pos- 
sible identification of the power of God manifested in 
the apostles, with the sorceries of the impostors. 
Many of these, reproved by their own conscience, 


* Justin speaks of devils cast out by the name of Jesus: Κατὰ τοῦ 
ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶν δαιμόνιον ἐξαρκιζόμενον νικάται. (* Dial. cum. 
Tryph.,” c. lxxxv. Comp. Origen, “Ὁ. Celsum,” i, 25.) We have 
here a superstition of the second century, which reminds us of the 
error of the Jewish exorcists. 


174. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


brought their cabalistic books and burned them 
publicly, just as, in later times, a penitent people cast 
all that reminded them of their life of worldliness into 
the flames kindled at Florence by the voice of Sav- 
onarola. An important Church was. founded at 
Ephesus, which was to be in the close of the apostolic 
age that which Jerusalem and Antioch had been at 
its commencement. 

For three years Ephesus was the chief abode of the 
Apostle. During this time, however, he made a 
journey of considerable extent in Europe. His first 
purpose was to visit Corinth, to set at rest the 
unhappy contentions in the Church of that city. He 
went by sea, and turned aside from the direct course 
to visit Crete. Itis easy to suppose that the Gospel 
had been already conveyed to that island by some 
Christians, and that Paul’s mission there, like Peter’s 
at Samaria, was to carry on a work already com- 
menced, and prosperous. His stay was but short. 
This island, famous for its wealth, and for the number 
of its towns, presented peculiar difficulties to Chris- 
tianity. The national character of its inhabitants 
had been depicted in severe colors by one of its poets, 
Epimenides, surnamed the prophet, who accused 
them of being altogether given up to sensuality and 
falsity. Titus 1,12. The very name of Cretan had 
become synonymous with liar.* A Church was estab- 
lished in the midst even of this depraved people ; but 
Christianity had many a conflict to wage with the 
recurring influences of the old corrupt nature. 

From Crete Paul went on to Corinth, where he 
stayed but a short time. During this visit he wrote 


* Κρητίζειν. 


® BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 175) 


his First Epistle to Timothy, whom he had left at 
Ephesus, and who in his youth and inexperience found 
himself at issue with serious errors, the first indica- 
tions of those Gnostic heresies which subsequently 
struck such deep root in this soil, where all the relig- 
ions of the Zast and West had in turn striven for pre- 
dominance.~ Paul shortly after this visit returned to 
Ephesus. Be there wrote his Epistle to Titus, giv- 
ing him the-benefit of his advice in the difficult task 
of conducting a Church. Shortly after his return, 
he sent Timothy into Macedonia to visit the Churches 
there, and to make collections for the Christians in 
Judea.* He himself, on the serious reports received 


* 1 Cor. xvi, 10, 11. After careful examination we have accepted 
Wieseler’s supposition, (pp. 280-329,) shared by M. Reuss, (‘¢ Gesch. 
der Heil. Schr. N. T.,” pp. 74-76,) as to the date of Paul’s voyage to 
Crete, of the First Epistle to Timothy and that to Titus. This theory 
only acquires any degree of certainty when the question of Paul’s 
second captivity has been thoroughly examined. This will come be- 
fore us as we proceed. For the present we are content with showing 
the probability of the facts being as we have represented. First, it 
is certain that Paul did not remain continuously at Ephesus during 
two years and a half, for we learn from 2 Cor. xiii, 1, that before 
writing his Second Epistle to the Corinthians he had twice visited 
their city. His first visit coincides with the foundation of the Church. 
His second journey can only be placed in the interval between his 
arrival at Ephesus and his departure from that city, for he alludes to 
it in 1 Cor. xvi, 7; and his First Epistle to the Corinthians was writ- 
ten from Ephesus. It is evident, therefore, that during this time 
Paul traveled, and traveled in Europe. His voyage to Crete is then 
possible at this period; and if, as we shall subsequently show, that 
voyage cannot be assigned to any other period in his life, the possi- 
bility becomes a certainty. We may add that the Epistle to Titus 
contains more than one indication of the date of its composition. 
Apollos is mentioned in it as one of Paul’s companions, who had 
joined himself to Titus. (Tit. iii, 13.) Now Paul had just made his 
personal acquaintance at Corinth, and he is not after this found in 
his company. Does not the name of Tychicus, who is a disciple of 


176 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


from Corinth, wrote a letter to the Church of that 
city, earnestly reproving it for its schism, for the 
irregularity of conduct which threatened its destruc- 
tion, and also for the dangerous heresies which even 
went so far as to deny, under pretense of spirituality, 
the resurrection of the body.* 

This letter was written under most touching cir- 
cumstances, for Paul was at that very time obliged 
to hide himself to escape the malice of his enemies. 
He had been suffered for a long time to labor with- 
out hinderance in the propagation of the Gospel at 
Ephesus, but persecution of singular violence sud- 
denly broke out against him. He encountered a 
kind of opposition which was more than once tem- 
porarily to arrest the progress of the Church, and to 


Asia Minor, indicate that the Apostle had just been laboring in that 
country? He appears again in company with the Apostle at the time 
of his last journey to Jerusalem. (Acts xx, 4.) M. Reuss places the 
composition of the Epistle to Titus during Paul’s short sojourn at 
Corinth, and Wieseler on his return to Ephesus. The latter supposi- 
tion appears to us the more probable, for on M. Reuss’s hypothesis, 
the letter to Titus would have been written very shortly after Paul’s 
leaving Crete. With reference to the First Epistle to Timothy, the 
Apostle’s manner of addressing him gives the impression that Timothy 
is still very young. We shall touch presently, in treating of the 
heresies of the Church of the first century, on the objections to the 
authenticity of the pastoral letters. 

* This letter was not the first, as we find in 1 Cor. v, g allusion to 
an earlier one. We may observe that these heresies, corresponding 
exactly with those contended against in the pastoral epistles, are 
pointed out by Paul in an epistle, the genuineness of which is never 
called in question. Is there not in this a powerful refutation of the 
system which pretends that the heresies mentioned in the pastoral 
epistles could have had no existence at this period, and which on that 
ground argues their spuriousness? Is there not also in this fact a 
confirmation of our supposition as to the date of the Epistles to 
‘Timothy and Titus ὃ 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 177 


shed rivers of Christian blood. The new religion 
disturbed not only the minds of men, but their secular 
interests. Paganism was not simply a system of 
general corruption, but also of universal traffic. The 
temples of the false gods had a multitude of depend- 
ents, who lived by the altars, and who, while they 
shared the popular superstition, also speculated on it 
for their own advantage. The preaching of the true 
God, no longer confined within the precincts of the 
synagogue, but making itself heard in the public 
squares, and gaining its thousands of adherents from 
among the idol worshipers, could not fail by its suc- 
cess to strike alarm into all those who made their 
gains out of the pagan worship. At Ephesus the 
priests were not the only persons whose interests 
were compromised by the preaching of the Gospel. 
A considerable traffic was carried on in small statues 
of the goddess and images of her temple. The silver- 
smiths made immense sums from this craft; the 
whole city was interested in the worship of Diana, 
for the votaries of the goddess brought streams of 
wealth within its walls. Nothing, then, was more 
easy than to excite the passions of the populace 
against the Apostle, and by the fury of his enemies 
we may infer how great had been the success of his 
mission. <A silversmith, named Demetrius, was the 
instigator of the tumult. His violent harangue, ad- 
dressed to his workmen, presents a strange mixture 
of cynicism and superstition. He passes without 
transition from the profits of his trade to the com- 
promised glory of Diana of the Ephesians. ‘Not 
only this our craft is in danger to be set at naught, 


but also the temple of the great goddess Diana shall 
12 


178 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


be despised, and her magnificence be destroyed, 
whom all Asia and the world worshipeth.” Acts 
xix, 27. Thus the true ground of fanaticism—self- 
interest—is brought to light. The vail of religion, 
in which it loves to envelope itself, is torn away, and 
the people of Ephesus come forward to make common 
cause for their riches and their faith. Demetrius 
succeeds in stirring up a serious tumult. The people 
rush to the theater, clamorously calling on the name 
of their favorite goddess. Two of Paul’s companions 
are caught. The courageous Apostle never hesi- 
tates. He will speak to this crowd, bellowing in the 
circus like a beast hungering for its prey. It was, 
doubtless, with the impression of these events, fresh 
in his mind, that he wrote in the letter addressed at 
this time to the Corinthians, “I have fought with 
beasts at Ephesus.” This lively image was an ad- 
mirable representation of the scene in question. A 
roaring lion is the truest symbol of an enraged mob.* 
His friends would not suffer him to make himself a 

* 1 Cor. xv, 32. Some Commentators have been disposed to take 
this expression literally. But Paul, as a Roman citizen, could not be 
sentenced to this ignominious torture. Nor have we the record of 
any further persecution than that mentioned in Acts xix, 29. [5 it 
possible to suppose that when, in the Second Epistle to the Corinth- 
lans, (xi, 23-28,) he is recalling all his sufferings, he should have 
passed over in silence an event so important as fighting with wild 
beasts? On the other hand, if these words of the Apostle are re- 
ferred to the tumult raised by Demetrius, they have a very impressive 
meaning. Doubtless he was not himself in the theater; but did not 
the fierce yells of the mob reach his ears? Was he not involved di- 
rectly in the combat? Was it not, in fact, between him and the 
people of Ephesus, and was not he the cause of the exasperation ? 
There is no argument against placing the conclusion of the First Epistle 


to the Corinthians after the riot, as Paul still remains one day in the 
city. (Acts xx, 1.) 


BOOK IJ.—FIRST CENTURY. 179 


sacrifice to the crowd. The Asiarchs, who were 
deputies of the towns of Asia Minor, charged with 
the provision and control of the public games, sent 
to entreat him not to adventure himself in the theater ; 
possibly they were favorable to him; they were at 
any rate responsible for all that occurred in the place 
of public entertainments. The riot came to a sin- 
gular conclusion. The Jews, alarmed at this violent 
reaction of idolatry, by which they might themselves 
be seriously compromised, put forward one of their 
number named Alexander to speak, doubtless with a 
view to show that their cause was not to be identi- 
fied with that of Paul.* But their tactics turned 
against themselves, for they thus provoked an increase 
of excitement, and for two hours nothing could be 
heard but the cry, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians !”’ 
The Town Clerk had the utmost difficulty in quieting 
the people by flattering their passions, and at the 
same time holding over them a salutary terror of the 
imperial power, which was wont to inflict severe pun- 
ishments on the seditious. Paul, in consequence of 
these events, immediately quitted Ephesus. The 
treatment he had there received was full of signifi- 
cance. It was prophetic of the persecutions await- 
ing Christians from the whole heathen world. It 
taught the Church how hard it is to change a cor- 
rupt condition of society. The vociferations in the 
circus at Ephesus would be re-echoed again and 
again, during the first three centuries, in the clamor- 


* De Wette, in his ‘‘Commentary on the Acts,” asserts that these 
Jews who put forward Alexander were Christian converts from Juda- 
ism. but the expression τῶν Ἰουδαίων does not permit this inter- 
pretation. Our hypothesis seems to us the most reasonable. 


180 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


ous cry, “Zhe Christians to the lions!” It was the 
first deep roar of paganism against Christianity. 
From Ephesus Paul went on into Europe. He 
had shortly before sent Titus to Corinth, in order to 
ascertain the precise effect produced in that Church 
by his letter. 2 Cor. xii, 18 After having vainly 
awaited his τε αὐ Proas;(29Cor-m, 12,913,) ΠῈ 
left to visit the Churches of Macedonia. These he 
found flourishing, full of devotion to himself, firm 
in their faith, purified by persecution, and disposed 
to contribute generously to the collections he was 
making for the Christians in Palestine. 2 Cor. viii, 
I, 2. This was a great consolation to the Apostle 
in the midst of his own afflictions ; for in Macedonia, 
as in Asia and Achaia, he encountered the bitter and 
persistent hostility of the Jews, and was at times 
overwhelmed with the greatness of his labors and 
the weariness of incessant conflict. 2 Cor. vii, 5. At 
length Titus rejoined him, and told him of the salu- 
tary effect produced by his first letter on the Chris- 
tians at Corinth. The irregularities which had 
caused 50. much scandal were put away: love for the 
Apostle had revived, and better days seemed about 
to dawn on the Corinthian Church. Equilibrium 
could not, however, be at once restored in a com- 
munity which had been so violently agitated, and the 
adversaries of the Apostle made one more attempt 
to regain their lost influence by redoubling their at- 
tacks on Paul, and denying his right to the apostolate. 
He himself, in the second epistle, written under the 
impression of his interview with Titus, gave free ex- 
pression to the feelings which filled his heart. Joy 
at τς vepentance of the Corinthians, and indignation 


BOOK. II.—FIRST CENTURY. 1951 


at the unjust attacks on himself, form the burden of 
this letter. In reply to his assailants, he pleads the 
facts of his apostolic career—a touching and beauti- 
ful apology. He depicts in glowing colors his labors, 
his sufferings, his triumphs ; and after the incompa- 
rable picture of his missionary life, gives a glimpse 
into the most sacred secrets of his spiritual history. 
In no part of his writings, full as all are of originality, 
has Paul left so deep an impress of his individuality. 
The epistle concludes with some practical sugges- 
tions relative to the collections for the Church at 
Jerusalem. This letter was sent to Corinth by Titus, 
who was to receive the latest offerings of the Co- 
rinthian Christians. Paul himself remained some 
time longer in Macedonia, and it was probably at 
this period he made the missionary journey into 
Illyria, of which he speaks in his Epistle to the 
Romans. Rom. xv, 19. He there stayed, as he had 
arranged, with Titus, in the city of Nicopolis, built 
by Augustine in memory (Titus i, 12,) of the battle 
of Actium. Thence he returned to Greece, and 
spent three months in Achaia, chiefly at Corinth, 
where he wrote his Epistle to the Romans, which we 
shall find equally valuable as an historical document, 
enabling us to trace the commencement of the 
Church at Rome, and as a doctrinal statement of 
Paul’s views upon Christianity. 

Paul, in his indefatigable zeal, contemplated a 
missionary journey into the far West. He desired 
to carry the Gospel into Spain, (Rom. xv, 24;) but 
before doing so, he waS anxious to revisit Jerusalem, 
to hand over the liberal collection which had been 
made, through his efforts, in the Churches of Mace- 


182 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


donia and Achaia, and to draw yet closer the bonds 
which united him to his colleagues in the apostleship. 
Rom. xv, 25-27. But at the very time he was pre- 
paring for these new and distant enterprises, he had 
a presentiment that in going up to Jerusalem he 
would encounter graver perils than any he had yet 
known. In truth, he had come to an open disruption 
with the Jews in all the great cities of Asia and of 
Greece. He had made no compromise with them, 
and he knew, by painful experience, what he might 
expect from their fanaticism in the very center of 
their power. Even in the Epistle to the Romans 
these presentiments are apparent ; the Apostle urges 
the Christians at Rome to pray that he may “be 
delivered from them that do not believe in Judaa.” 
Rom. xv, 31. His friends shared his apprehensions, 
which were also repeatedly confirmed by prophetic 
revelations. Thus this journey from Europe up to 
Jerusalem was one succession of most pathetic fare- 
wells. These began at Troas, whither the Apostle 
had gone by sea from Philippi. On the eve of his 
departure, he assembled the Christians of that city in 
one of the agape so common in the early Church, 
and which were concluded by the celebration of the 
Lord’s Supper. Parting words of exhortation and of 
consolation were prolonged far into the night. The 
᾿ miracle wrought upon Eutychus, who being killed by 
a fall from an upper window into the street was re- 
stored to life by the embrace of the Apostle, was a 
token of consolation and encouragement for the sor- 
rowful Christians at Troas.* The most affecting 
scene took place at Miletus, where the Apostle 
landed after coasting along Asia Minor. He had 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 183 


appointed this as the meeting-place for the elders of 
that Ephesian Church in which his ministry had 
borne such noble fruits, Every thing contributed to 
the solemnity of this interview. Paul had an ever- 
deepening conviction that bonds, afflictions, and per- 
haps death, were awaiting him. He went up to 
Jerusalem as to an altar of sacrifice. He knew that 
the Church of Ephesus was threatened with danger- 
ous heresies. Acts xx, 23-31. Before him were its 
representatives—men to whom he was deeply attached. 
We can imagine how bitter was the separation under 
such circumstances. The words of the Apostle 
are full of pathos and sublimity. The most ten- 
der human feelings find expression as freely as the 
manly courage of the martyr, and the solemn warn- 
ings of the pastor. Paul calls his hearers to witness 
the faithfulness with which he has preached the 
Gospel at Ephesus, “keeping back nothing.” He 
tells them that they must depend no longer on him, 
for “he shall see their face no more,” and he adjures 
them to watch over the young Church as over a frail 
plant exposed to the storm. Paul is evidently fully 
conscious of the difficulty of.the transition from the 
apostolic age to the period when the Church is to walk 
without the guidance of its founders. His address is 
full of pathetic warnings, which will be only too 
fully justified by history. ‘“ And now,” he says, in 
conclusion, “I commend you to God, and to the 
word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and 
to give you an inheritance among all them that are 
sanctified, through faith which is in Jesus. I have 
coveted no man’s silver or gold. Yea, ye yourselves 
know that these hands have ministered to my neces- 


184 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


sities, and to them which were with me. I have 
showed you in all things how that so laboring ye 
ought to support the weak, and to remember the 
words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, “It is more 
blessed to give than to receive.” * After thus speak- 
ing, Paul fell on his knees, and prayed fervently for 
that Church so threatened with peril. Then, amid 
sore weeping, he took leave of the elders of Ephesus. 
They knew, as they sorrowingly accompanied him to 
the ship, that upon those shores he would never 
stand again, and their parting had all the bitterness of 
a final farewell. 

No remarkable incidents marked the journey to 
Jerusalem, except that Paul’s presentiments as to his 
coming captivity were confirmed by positive predic- 
tions. At Tyre he met some disciples who, warned 
by the Spirit of the dangers awaiting him, entreated 
him not to pursue his journey to Jerusalem. At 
Czesarea, in the house of Philip the Evangelist, a 
prophet named Agabus yet more clearly foretold his 
captivity by a symbolic action, which reminds us of 
the manner of the ancient prophets. 1 Kings xxii, 11. 
He was once more besought by his friends to change 
his purpose, but he remained immovable, ready, as 
he said, not only to be bound, but also to die, if 
need be, for the name of the Lord Jesus. Presenti- 


* This saying of the Lord is not recorded in our Gospels. 

t Baur regards this address as a fabrication of the second century. 
He grounds his opinion on the mention of the heretics of the Church 
at Ephesus. We shall reply to this objection when speaking of the 
heresies of the primitive Church. The Apostle’s presentiments also 
seem to Baur in contradiction with other declarations, such as Rom. 
xv, 32. May we not suppose, however, fluctuations of feeling in the 
heart of the Apostle? (See ‘ Paulus,” p. 177.) 


BOOK IJ.—FIRST CENTURY. 185 


ments and prophecies were soon to receive signal 
fulfillment. 

The Apostle arrived at Jerusalem, surrounded by 
his most cherished companions, men belonging to the 
different Churches founded by him in Greece and 
Asia. They were the representatives and pledges of 
the universal triumph of Christianity. They were 
the first-fruits of the new Israel, to be gathered in 
from the ends of the earth. Paul was received with 
the greatest affection by the elders of the Church. 
It was quite evident, however, that the great body of 
Judaizing Christians were still prejudiced against 
him. With a view to conciliation, he consented, on 
the advice of James, not exactly to take upon himself 
the vow of the Nazarite, but to pay the legal charges 
for four Christians of Jewish origin, who were about 
to fulfill their vow in the Temple, at the very time of 
his arrival in Jerusalem.* This step was not a poli- 
tic artifice on the part of Paul, an attempt at diplo- 
matic conciliation, as has been objected. He merely 
acted out the decisions of the Council at Jerusalem. 
Himself a Jew, he observed the Jewish custom, ac- 
cording to the decree which had been passed with 
his concurrence a few years previously. He followed 
also that other law which he had laid down for him- 
self, of being to the Jews as a Jew, that he might win 

* To pay the charges for the sacrifices intended for the fulfillment of 
the vow of the Nazarite was regarded as an act of great piety. (Jo- 
sephus, “‘ Ant.,” xx, 6, 1.) We cannot suppose that Paul himself on 
this occasion took the vow of the Nazarite, for the fulfillment of that 
vow required a much greater length of time. (Numbers vi, 8, 9.) 
His purification would be required for the offering of any sacrifice in 
the Temple, no less than for the fulfillment of the Nazarite’s vow. 


(x Samuel xvi, 5.) See Wieseler, ‘‘Chronol. des ap. Zeit.,” pp. 
104, 105. 


186 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


all by wise conciliation, instead of offending all by a 
sudden revolution. It was this step, however, so 
pacific in intention, which most of all exasperated his 
enemies ; they regarded it as an insult alike to the 
Temple and the law of Moses. When the Apostle 
entered the Temple to signify, according to custom, 
the days when the purification would be accom- 
plished, and the offerings would be presented for the 
Nazarites, some Jews from Asia, who had come up 
to Jerusalem to keep the feast, stirred up the multi- 
tude against him, on the pretense that he had 
brought Greeks into the Temple. This accusation 
was a baseless calumny, for he had not taken with 
him any of his foreign companions. It has been as- 
serted that these Jews were the Judaizing Christians 
who formed the nucleus of the Church at Jerusalem.* 
But this is a gratuitous supposition ; the Jews from 
Asia did not belong to the Church at Jerusalem, but 
undoubtedly to one of those fanatical synagogues, 
from which Paul had already met so much opposi- 
tion. Be this as it may, however, the calumny art- 
fully set in circulation excited the ever mobile pas- 
sion of the crowd. The people of Jerusalem showed 
themselves as fanatical as those of Ephesus. Igno- 
rant attachment to the Temple of the true God 
produced the same effects as the worship of the 
impure goddess Diana. In truth, the adherents of 
the Judaism of the decline clung to their worship for 
the very same reasons as the priests and silversmiths 
of Ephesus; they thought first of all of the honor 
and profit to be derived from it. They made the 
name of Jehovah a covert for their unworthy passions 


* Baur, ‘‘ Das Christenthum der drei ersten Jahrh.,” p. 65. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 187 


and sordid interests ; thus proving that idolatry may 
be found in allreligions and under all forms. When 
the tumult was at its height, the tribune who com- 
manded the fortress at Antonia, situated not far from 
the Temple, brought down the soldiery to repress the 
riot, which seemed likely to throw the whole city into 
an uproar. 

More than once already the excitable crowd had 
risen at the voice of the unknown agitators. A 
recent event gave great probability to the fears of 
the tribunes. Josephus tells us that an Egyptian 
had come to Jerusalem, saying that he was a prophet. 
He persuaded the multitude to follow him on to the 
Mount of Olives, on the promise that he would make 
the fortifications of the city fall down at his word, 
and would lead back his followers through the breach. 
Felix dispersed the tumultuous assembly by force of 
arms, but the Egyptian had succeeded in making his 
escape.” 

The Tribune Lysias at once took it for granted 
that the present riot was excited by the return of the - 
Egyptian, whom he supposed Paulto be. Acts xxi, 38. 
As he was being led away to prison, the Apostle 
asked leave to speak to the people who were following 
him with shouts and cries. Having received permis- 
sion to address them from the steps of the citadel, 
he attempted no evasion, but, with heroic courage, 
related in a few graphic words the change wrought 
in him by his conversion, as though to say to this 
fanatical people, “ There was a time when I was a 
persecutor of Christians, as you are, but I have seen 
my guilt, and I charge you with the same.” 


*'O δὲ Αἰγύπτιος αὐτὸς ἐκ τῆς μάχης ἀφανὴς ἐγένετο. Josephus, 
BS Pus? oe Os 


188 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


At the first mention of his mission to the Gentiles 
the hoarse cries of anger burst forth afresh and 
drowned his voice, as on another occasion—how 
fresh in the memory of Saul of Tarsus !—the voice ot 
Stephen had been drowned; and the Tribune, to 
save him from the violence of the people, commanded 
that he should be brought into the castle. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 189 


: CLAP UDR. 


MISSIONS AND PERSECUTIONS OF THE CHURCH FROM 
THE CAPTIVITY OF ST: PAUL TO. HIS DEATH AND 
THAT OF ST. PETER. 


$I. Various Phases of St. Paul's Captivity. 


S he crossed the threshold of the citadel Paul 
entered on a captivity which was to terminate 
only with his life. Let us endeavor to follow him 
through its various phases. The Tribune Lysias was 
much embarrassed by the presence of this prisoner, 
whose crime was unknown to him. He thought his 
guilt might be most easily ascertained by putting 
Paul under torture in its least cruel form. This was 
an expeditious method recommended by the Roman 
law, but only to be applied to slaves, or in cases of 
exceptional seriousness.* 

Lysias thought he had before him a common 
agitator, a low ringleader of a despised people. He 
felt no hesitation in inflicting a degrading penalty on 
a man whom he regarded as worse than a slave. 
Paul, however, appealed to his rights as a Roman 
citizen, and the very name sufficed to cover him with 
a powerful shield. The next day the Tribune brought 

* << Edictum divi Augusti extat : quaestiones neque semper in omni 
causa et persona desiderari debere arbitror, sed cum capitalia et atrocia 
maleficia non aliter explorari et investigari possunt quam per servorum 


quzestiones, efficacissimas eas esse ad requirendam veritatem existimo.” 


(Wieseler, work quoted, p. 376.) 


I90 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


his prisoner before the bar of the Sanhedrim, hoping 
to discover the cause of the hostility of the Jews to 
him. The Jews were vehemently desirous to have 
the whole matter left in their hands. Religious of- 
fenses were still within their province, and they 
might thus have avenged themselves on Paul, without 
all the delays of Roman jurisdiction.* It was im- 
portant for Paul that these tactics should be frustrated. 
If the Sanhedrim were unanimous in finding him 
guilty of profaning the Temple, he might be at once 
given over to his implacable enemies. He therefore 
sought to divide them by setting forth in strong lan- 
guage his belief in a resurrection. Such a challenge 
could not fail to kindle strife between the Pharisees 
and Sadducees. Paul cannot be accused of duplicity, 
for there were in truth certain views common to him 
and to the Pharisees, and his opposition to their 
spirit of formalism was too well known to permit any 
misconception of his attitude toward them. We do 
not hesitate, however, to prefer his defense in the 
presence of the clamorous crowd, or before Felix and 
Festus, as being less politic and more noble. The 
violent words of Paul to Ananias, compared to the 
conduct of the Saviour under similar circumstances, 
make us sensible of the vast distance between the 
Master and the disciple. The Apostle still carried a 
human heart within his bosom, and he had ever to be 
on his guard against the outbreak of his impetuous 
disposition.t The sitting of the Sanhedrim ended in 


AW ieseler; piu 278: 

+ There has been much dispute among commentators as to how 
Paul could have said of the High Priest, “" Οὐκ ἤδειν." Acts xxiii, 5. 
It has been maintained that Paul spoke ironically, ‘* J Low him, but 
do not recognize him.” It has also been conjectured that the High 


BOOK ΠΕ ΞΞΘ ΕΞ CENPFORY., Ig 


a great dissension between the Pharisees and the Sad- 
ducees. The exasperation of the latter against Paul 
seemed so great that the [ribune once more interposed, 
and to save Paul’s life remanded him to prison. On 
learning of a nefarious plot laid by the Jews against 
the captive, Lysias sent him away to Ceesarea. 

The Procurator Felix, to whose tribunal Paul was 
now brought, was a freedman of the Emperor Clau- 
dius, brother of Pallas, the favorite of Agrippina. He 
belonged to that class, famous for its baseness and 
immorality, which then governed the world by gov- 
erning the Caesars, purchasing power by flattery, and 
using it with tyranny to recover the price paid for it. 
Tacitus has characterized Felix with one stroke of 
his incisive pen, when he says, “ At once a debauchee 
and a tyrant, he performed functions little less than 
royal with the spirit of a slave.” * In order to estab- 
lish his position in Judzea, he married Drusilla, 
daughter of Herod Agrippa. He made his govern- 
ment odious to the Jews, indulging himself, as we fur- 
ther learn from Tacitus, in every sort of crime.t He 
had continually to suppress attempts at sedition, 
headed sometimes by robbers called sicarii, some- 
times by false messiahs. He acted with the greatest 
severity toward the chiefs of the nation, in conse- 
quence of riots between the Jews and the Syrians in 
Czesarea.t Such a man was likely to hold Paul and 
his accusers in an even balance, and to treat both 
Priest being illegally in office, Paul designed to give him a rebuke. 
These explanations are too ingenious. It is better to suppose that 
Paul really did not, at the first moment, recognize the High Priest. 

* «Per omnem seevitiam ac libidinem jus regium servili ingenio 


exercuit:”*Factius, ΚΕ Hist.,”” v5.9. 
+ “Annals,” xii, 54. t Josephus, ‘‘ Ant.,”? vill, 7. 


192 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


with the impartiality of a common hatred. It is 
more than probable that if Paul had not been able to 
appeal to his rights as a Roman citizen he would 
have been left to perish in some obscure dungeon, or 
would have been put to death as a leader of sedition. 
But it was not possible for even a Felix to treat a 
Roman citizen with this cruel indifference. He was 
compelled to hear his cause. His marked antipathy 
to the rulers of the Sanhedrim was a circumstance 
favorable to the accused. The charges brought by 
the Jews against Paul were as false as they were 
bitter. They accused him, by the mouth of their advo- 
cate Tertullus, with being the chief of a sect which 
they represented as politically dangerous, stirring up 
sedition in Judaea and throughout the world. They 
knew well that nothing would be more sure to irri- 
tate the cruel Proconsul than such suspicions as 
these. They mentioned also the profanation of their 
Temple as a pretext for bringing the accused within 
their own jurisdiction. Paul refuted their accusations 
point by point, by the clear and simple narration of 
his last journey to Jerusalem. Felix was convinced 
of his innocence, but, willing to pacify the Jews, he 
remanded him to prison. He subsequently gave him 
at intervals several mock hearings, in which he 
sought rather to gratify his own curiosity and that 
of his wife Drusilla, than to do justice to Paul. Re- 
proved in his conscience by Paul’s solemn reason- 
ings of righteousness and judgment to come, he left 
him for two years in prison, secretly hoping that 
Paul and his friends would in the end offer a large 
sum for his release. 

The captivity of the Apostle at this time was not 


BOOK: Ti:-— FIRST: CENTURY. 193 


rigorous. It was not, however, the merely nominal 
imprisonment known as cwustodia libera, which al- 
lowed the prisoner the right of living in the house of 
a consul, a pretor, or a magistrate. This sort of de- 
tention was granted only to the most illustrious of- 
fenders, and Paul was not of this number. We know 
positively that he was committed to the guard of 
Roman soldiers ; but there were many degrees in mili- 
tary captivity, and the magistrate could at will relax or 
tighten the bonds.* Felix commanded that Paul 
should be treated leniently, and be allowed free inter- 
course with his friends. Acts xxiv, 23. The Apostle 
thus received frequent communications from the 
Churches. Can we suppose that he was himself en- 
tirely silent during these two years passed at Ceesarea, 
so near to his beloved Churches in Asia Minor—those 
Churches for which he had expressed such tender anx- 
iety to the Ephesian elders? Had he not forewarned 
them at Miletus of the dangerous inroads that would 
be made by oriental Gnosticism on these Christians, 
already beset with so many snares, and blown about 
by such various winds of doctrine? Was it not high 
time to put them on their guard against perils so 
serious? These considerations seem to us to justify 
the supposition that the Epistles to the Ephesians 
and to the Colossians, and the lost Epistle to the 
Laodiceans, were written during this period of cap- 
tivity at Ceesarea.t The Epistle to Philemon may 


* Wieseler, work quoted, pp. 380, 381. 

+ Most commentators assign to these Epistles a later date, namely, 
the early part of Paul’s captivity at Rome. Wieseler does so on the 
ground of the great freedom he enjoyed during that portion of his 
captivity. But the imprisonment at Czesarea was sufficiently lax to 


13 


194 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


also well have been written at this date. Paul had 
met in his imprisonment with a poor fugitive slave 
belonging to a Christian at Colosse. Full of the 
thought that in Christ there is neither bond nor free, 
he had devoted himself with most affectionate solici- 
tude to this unhappy outcast of society, and, accord- 
ing to his own beautiful expression, had in his bonds 
begotten him to the faith. He thus gave the strong- 
est demonstration of the absolute equality which 
exists between Christians, and he secured the future 
emancipation of the slave by sending him back as 
his own son in the faith, and consequently as a 
brother of his master, to the house from which he 
had fled.* 

Felix was removed from Czsarea, and Festus came 
in his place. The new governor, like his prede- 
cessor, had to wage warfare with the Jewish brigands, 
who under the name of Sicarii laid waste the country. 
He had also some serious differences with the Temple 
authorities at Jerusalem.f Probably the hostility 


allow direct and frequent communications with the Churehes. (See 
Reuss, ‘‘ Geschichte der H. Schr. N. T.,” p. 98.} 

* It appears to us, in spite of Neander’s opinion, infinitely more 
probable that Onesimus should have fled from Colosse to Czesarea 
than from Colosseto Rome. The fact that Paul was, in his captivity, 
the companion of a slave, proves that his confinement was not so 
light as at first it was at Rome, and we have thus an incidental argu- 
ment in favor of our supposition. Wieseler (p. 455) endeavors to 
identify the Epistle to Philemon with that to the Laodiceans spoken 
of in Colossians iv, 16. He does so on the ground that the Epistle 
to Philemon is also addressed to Archippus, who in the Epistle to the 
Colossians (iv, 17) is mentioned as an inhabitant of Laodicea. But 
this latter fact does not appear clearly from the text. Besides, it ts 
difficult to understand how a mere letter of recommendation could be 
spoken of ss an epistle addressed to an entire Church. 

+ Josephus, ‘* Antiquities,” xx, 8-10. 


BOOK 75 ΤΕ ΘΙ CENTURY. 195 


between him and the priest’s party broke out soon 
after his entry upon office. It may have even begun 
to manifest itself at the time of his journey to Jeru- 
salem. Acts xxv, 1. In that case the tergiversations 
in the treatment of the Apostle would be explained. 
Festus at first shows himself favorable to the Jews ; 
and willing to do them a pleasure, leaves Paul in 
prison. Then suddenly he turns against them, and 
haughtily refuses to allow the prisoner to be brought 
before the Sanhedrim. The High Priest is therefore 
compelled to go down to Czsarea to sustain the ac- 
cusation. The Jews, finding it hopeless to get Paul 
brought before their own tribunal, as guilty of crimes 
exclusively concerning their religion, change their 
tactics, and accuse him of stirring up rebellion against 
the Emperor. This appears from the defense of the 
accused, who strongly asserts his innocence on this 
point. Acts xxv, 8. Wearied of this interminable trial, 
indignant at being made a tool to serve the policy of 
the Roman procurators in their relations with the 
Jews, Paul takes a decisive step, and appeals to the 
Emperor. This was of course the highest jurisdiction, 
and there was no power in the empire the decisions 
of which might not be revised and reversed by this 
supreme authority.* Henceforward Paul's cause was 


* Dio Cassius uses the following words with reference to these 
appeals to the Emperor: Δέκαζε δὲ, καὶ αὐτὸς ἰδία τὰ Te ἐφέσιμα καὶ τὰ 
ἀναπόμπιμα ὅσα ἄν παρὰ τε τῶν μειζόνων ἀρχόντων ἀφικνῆται, μῆτε yap 
αὐτοδικος mht’ αὐτοτελῆς οὕτω τις παράπαν ἔστω ὥστε μὴ οὐκ ἐφέσιμον 
ἀπ, αὐτοῦ δίκην γίγνεσθαι. (‘Dio Cassius,” ii, 19, 53.) Speaking 
of Augustus, he says, ‘‘ He judged appeals and causes sent up to him 
even after the decision of the very highest authorities, for there was 
no independent or supreme judge from whom there could be no ap- 
peal to him.”’ 


196 EARLY YEARS OF THE, CHRISTIAN: GHURCH. 


withdrawn from the inferior tribunals. It must be 
pleaded and receive its solution at Rome. 

The judicial ceremony, therefore, which was en- 
acted at Czesarea a few days later, can only be re- 
garded as a sort of amusement given by Festus to 
his illustrious guests—an amusement worthy of a 
blasé Roman, to whom the enthusiasm and faith of 
St. Paul were but a curious phenomenon. The King 
Agrippa, before whom Paul appeared, was Herod 
Agrippa, son of the nephew of Herod the Great, of 
the same name. Brought up in the palace of the 
Czesars, he had attained to his high rank by flattery, 
and had received from the munificence of the Em- 
peror, to whom he had been an assiduous courtier,* 
with the title of king, the tetrarchies formerly held 
by Philip and Lysanias. Like all favorites, he used 
his power despotically, making and unmaking the 
high priests at his pleasure. Versed in all intrigue, 
he lived a life of shameless license, in incestuous con- 
nection with his sister, the famous Bernice, who was 
subsequently to try the power of her charms on Ves- 
pasian and Titus. 

Attention has often been drawn to the sharpness 
of outline with which these various personages are 
sketched by the sacred historian. On the one hand 
we see the Roman of the decline, essentially a mate- 
rialist, treating religious questions with contemptuous 
irony, and charging Paul with madness when he 
speaks of the resurrection of the dead, and carries 
his hearers into that invisible world which has no 
existence for the pagan. Acts xxv, 19; xxvi, 24. On 

* Δαβὼν δὲ τὴν δωρεὰν παρὰ τοῦ Katoapoc. (Josephus, “ Antiqui- 
165. Στ 7 ἢ 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. EOF 


the other hand, Agrippa perfectly represents the man 
who knows the truth without loving it, and who, 
while giving to it the assent of his reason, refuses to 
yield to it his heart, and to break the chains of licen- 
tiousness. Acts xxvi, 28. In contrast to these two 
types of the ancient world, how nobly does Paul 
stand forth as the representative of the new religion! 
He gives an account, grand in its simplicity, of his 
past life, of his conversion, and his mission to the 
Gentiles. Acts xxvi, 4-23. His only crime is, that 
he has obeyed the call of God; for this alone have 
the Jews sought to kill him. He has no other apol- 
ogy to offer than his absolute devotion to the truth. 
The history of his ministry is the most eloquent 
commentary on the reply of Peter to the Sanhedrim : 
“We cannot but speak those things which we have 
seen and heard.’ Was it possible for him to resist 
commands so direct from God? Festus and Agrippa 
recognize fully the innocence of Paul, but he has 
appealed to Cesar, and he must needs be sent to 
Rome. 

The incidents of his voyage are familiar to us all. 
In the midst of perils of the sea, he manifests the 
same calmness, the same courage, the same zeal for 
souls, the same unvarying forgetfulness of self. After 
the shipwreck, and a sojourn of three months in the 
island of Malta, made use of by the Apostle for the 
foundation of a Church,.he lands on those shores of 
Italy which he was to water with his blood, and re- 
ceives at Puteoli the brotherly welcome of the Chris- 
tians of the country. Forty miles from Rome, in the 
little town of Appii Forum, Paul is met by some 
Christians from the capital of the world; a still 


108 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIANSCHURCH. 


larger number are awaiting him at a little inn called 
the “Three Taverns,” * thirty miles nearer the me- 
tropolis. Thus escorted, he enters the city by that 
Appian way which had witnessed so many triumphal 
processions amid its tombs. Little did any dream 
that this prisoner, conducted by a centurion, and 
surrounded by a group of poor and mean men, was 
the greatest conqueror who had ever trodden that 
path, and that no victory could be comparable with 
that he was to win over all the combined powers of 
the pagan world, which found their focus in the im- 
perial city. The Centurion who brought Paul to 
Rome belonged to one of the legions of the prz- 
torian guard.t He handed over his prisoner, accord- 
ing to his duty, to the pretorian prefect under whom 
he served. All the criminals who had appealed to 
the jurisdiction of Czesar were put in charge of this 
high dignitary of the court. The prefect, at this 
time, was Burrhus, a man of distinction and modera- 
tion, and of severe morals, whose happy influence 
restrained even Nero in his career of crime.t He 
treated Paul with indulgence, probably in conse- 
quence of the favorable letters received from Festus, 
and also on the report of the Centurion, who had be- 
come the friend of his prisoner. Paul was allowed 
to remain under the guard of a soldier in a house 
hired by himself, and had free communication with 
his friends. This lenient captivity lasted for two 


* Tres Tabernz: 

+ We must thus understand the words: σπείρης Σεβαστῆς. (Acts 
xxvil, I.) Wieseler mentions that detachments of this preetorian 
guard were often sent on distant missions. 

f-Tacitus,. ** Annals,” xii, 2; 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 199 


years, during which Paul was not inactive. He first 
of all called the chief of the Jews together for solemn 
conference, thus showing how full was his heart of 
that charity which hopeth all things. Was not his 
very presence in that prison the living proof of their 
obduracy? and were not the chains which bound 
him riveted by their fierce fanaticism? Here, as 
every-where else, Paul found them the implacable 
enemies of Jesus Christ, and of his Church. The 
last recorded words of the Apostle addressed to them 
seem like the echo of the anathema pronounced by 
Christ on the Pharisees shortly before his death. 
Acts xxvili, 25-27. These stern utterances are the 
final judgment of the Apostle upon the Jews as a 
nation.* : 

After being thus repulsed by the rulers of the syna- 
gogue at Rome, Paul turned once more with success 
to the Gentiles. As in the prison at Czesarea he had 
preached the Gospel to a poor slave, his companion 
in captivity, so now he endeavored to win to Christ 
the soldiers who guarded him by turns. His bonds 
were by this means to become famous through the 
whole prztorium. Phil. i, 13. In the same manner, 
he embraced every opportunity afforded him to fulfill 
his apostolic commission among the inhabitants of 
the great city, and his captivity contributed much to 
the increase of the Christian Church in Rome. 

This state of things lasted till the year 62. Then 
every thing was changed. From Paul's letter to the 
Philippians we learn, first, that the party of Judaizing 
Christians had commenced their intrigues against 
him ; they did not hesitate even “to add affliction to 


* See Baumgarten, work quoted, second part, ς. 1]. 


200 EARLY YEARS OF. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


his bonds.” Phil. i, 15, 16. The greatness of Paul’s 
soul, his absolute disinterestedness and sublime char- 
ity, were brought out under these circumstances. In 
presence of the colossal paganism which was ever 
before his eyes in Rome, minor differences must be 
lost sight of, and help must be accepted from all who 
preached Jesus Christ, even if they preached only 
from unworthy motives, and to provoke contention 
and strife. Phil. i, 18. The captivity of the Apostle 
became increasingly strict. We cannot but wonder 
at the all but interminable delays in the hearing of 
his cause at Rome. But he had already waited two 
years at Czesarea; and Nero, who began to show a 
disposition to tyranny, was not likely to be more 
eager than his proconsuls to do prompt justice. Nor 
must we forget that his trial could not come on till 
his accusers had arrived, for their charge must be 
laid before the imperial tribunal. At the time of 
year when the Apostle reached Rome the sea voy- 
age was impracticable. Some months, therefore, 
must elapse before his trial could begin. 

The Jews had no interest in hastening the matter 
to a conclusion ; on the contrary, they might wish to 
allow time for the impression favorable to Paul, pro- 
duced by the reports of Festus, to wear away. They 
awaited some auspicious moment for gaining the ear 
of the Emperor. They. doubtless thought such a 
moment had arrived when Octavia Poppza was raised 
to the rank of empress, for she openly protected 
them, and Josephus asserts that she was a proselyte.* 
It was easy to obtain her intervention in a cause 
which so closely concerned her gvotégés. The wise 

* Θεοσεβὴς γὰς ἦν. (Josephus, “ Ant.,” xx, 8, 11.) 


BOOK -FI.——FIRST CENTURY. 201 


Burrhus, prefect to the przetorians, was just dead, 
and had been succeeded by Fennius Rufus and the 
wicked Tigellinus, the creature of Poppza.* Paul 
was directly in the power of the natural protectors of 
his most deadly enemies. He had little hope of ob- 
taining justice from Nero at a time when, according 
to the expression of Tacitus, the young Emperor was 
inclining to crime.f In his letter to the Philippians, 
the Apostle had already expressed forebodings of the 
fatal issue of his trial. He still thinks there is a pos- 
sibility of his being set at large, but the thought of 
approaching death is ever present with him. Phil. i, 
19-26. He is ready that his blood should be poured 
forth—a holy libation upon the sacrifice of the faith 
ofthe Churches.t But it is the second letter to Timo- 
thy which is especially full of the presentiments of 
immediate death. It is like the dying testament of 
the Apostle. The hour of martyrdom is at hand ; 
already he is left alone, forsaken by all who did not 
share his courageous and disinterested faith. The 
disciples from Asia Minor have gone back to their 
country. 2 Tim. 1, 15. Demas has saddened his 
heart by a cowardly defection. 2 Tim. iv, to. Luke 
alone is with him. The malice of enemies becomes 
daily more declared. He has been summoned to 
stand before the bar of Cesar unsustained by any 
human aid. 2 Tim. iv, 16. But his word has been 
mighty, none the less ; and, with the help of God, he 


* Wieseler, pp. 403, 404. 

1 Tacitus, “‘ Annals,” xiv, 52. 

1 Phil. ii, 17. For a full description of the Apostle’s spiritual 
position at this time, see Neander’s ‘ Practical Commentary on the 
Epistle to the Philippians,” p. 71. 


202 EARLY YEARS ΘΕ THE CHRISTIAN“CHURCH. 


has been enabled to confess Christ before heathen 
Rome, and before the Emperor. 

But though he has thus once been delivered out of 
the mouth of the lion, (2 Tim. iv, 17,) he knows he 
shall not escape a second time, and he gives his last 
exhortation to his most faithful friend. His heart is 
full, as at Miletus, of anxious care for the Churches. 
The heresy which then he feared has already begun 
to make havoc among them, (2 °Tim, ii, 17; ii, 13 5 
iv, 3,) and dangers are rife within and without. The 
Apostle points out to those who shall survive him 
the important work which will devolve upon them. 
He forewarns them of inevitable suffering and perse- 
cution, and epitomizes his own experience of the 
Christian vocation in all its height of privilege and 
depth of self-sacrifice in the noble words, “If we 
suffer, we shall also reign with him.” Was not his 
whole career one “bearing about in the body the 
dying of the Lord Jesus,” filling up that which was 
behind in the afflictions of Christ in his flesh, for his 
body’s sake, the Church? Was not the living sac- 
rifice already consumed by the fire of a fervent love ? 
With what beautiful simplicity does he make the last 
surrender of himself when he says, “I am now 
ready to_be offered, and the time of my departure is 
at-hand ;"si(2 Lim. Av,-6:;)"and-as:/he-adds, ““ence= 
forth there is laid up for me a crown of righteous- 
ness,” can we not see its brightness already circling the 
aged brow? This prisoner of the Lord Jesus has for 
his crown the many Churches founded by his ministry. 
Those honorable sufferings, which give such irresist- 
ible weight to his testimony, are Jike the thorns under 
which the brow of the Redeemer bled. There is but 


BOOK ΕΞ ΤΕ CENTURY: 203 


little left for Nero to do to perfect the crown of mar- 
tyrdom, and to set on the apostleship of Paul the last 
and most sacred seal of blood. He has fought a 
good fight, he has finished his course. “ Having 
given himself to God,” says Chrysostom, “ Paul 
desired to bring with himself the whole world as 
an offering. To this end he traversed sea and 
land, Greece and the barbarous countries, every- 
where plucking up the thorns of sin, that he might 
sow the seed of the Gospel ; and every-where trans- 
forming men intoangels.* “ Quz vocatus a Domino,’ 
adds St. Jerome in his forcible language, “ effusus est 
super faciem universe terre.” F 

We shall presently consider Paul in the light 
of the first of the great teachers of the primitive 
Church ; hitherto we have regarded him only as the 
man of conflict and of action, the missionary and the 
controversialist. If we inquire into the peculiar char- 
acter of the missions undertaken and directed by 
him, we shall find that they differ somewhat from 
those of the foregoing period. The Divine Spirit 
works not less mightily in Paul than in Peter, but 
the part of the human agent is more distinctly observ- 
able. The thousands converted on the day of Pen- 
tecost and in Solomon’s porch were acted upon bya 
‘sudden and irresistible influence, produced by the 
first outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Conversions in 
masses like these do not recur in this second period 
of the Church. The proselytes are many, but they 


ἘΠΕ πειδὴ καλῶς ἑαυτὸν καθίερωσε καὶ τὴν οἰκουμένην προσήνεγχε. 
(Chrysost., τ’ De laudib. Pauli apost.,”? Homily I.) 

+ Hieron., vol. iii., p. 1412. See Note F, at the end of this 
volume, on the captivity of Paul. 


204. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


are made one by one, through the personal efforts of 
St.Paul’ The longer he remains in any place, the 
more important is the Church there formed. Results 
seem proportioned in their magnitude to the amount 
of direct personal effort. When we come to examine 
his teaching, we shall see how wise he was in his 
adaptation of the means he employed to win souls, 
and how admirably he sought and found the point of 
contact between those he addressed and the Gospel 
he preached. His ministry is accompanied with 
miracles, but he has less frequent recourse than 
earlier preachers to this method of persuasion. In 
many places he founded Churches by the power of 
his word alone. In these missions of the Apostle to 
the Gentiles, therefore, the Divine Spirit works more 
directly upon the conscience and less by external 
manifestations. Man cannot derive any glory to 
himself from this fact, for though God’s method of 
intervention assumes a different form, it is none the 
less to this sovereign intervention of grace that the 
most beautiful fruits of the Apostle’s labor are to be 
ascribed.* 


SII. Mission of the other Apostles during this 
period.t 


While Paul was carrying the Gospel from Asia 
Minor into Europe, and to the very center of Western 


* See Note G, at the end of the volume. 

+ See Fabricius, ‘‘Salutaris lux Evangelii toto orbi oriens,”? Ham- 
burg, 1731, pp. 94, 95. Eusebius is here the principal source of our 
information. Nicephorus Callixtus, in the second book of his “ Ec- 
clesiastical History,” supplies us with some authentic information. 
(Nicephori Callixti, “ Ecclesiasticee Historia,” Libri XVIII.) The 
sort of romance of Abdias on the apostolic age has no kind of value. 


BOOK ΞΘ CENTURY. 205 


paganism, the other Apostles were not inactive in 
the field of Christian missions. We possess few cer- 
tain details of their labors. We only get glimpses of 
them through the prismatic lens of legend. It is, 
however, possible to make out, beneath the capricious 
adornments of fable, some positive facts of their 
history, which present traits of indisputable accuracy. 
‘There is no evidence ‘that the Apostles, with the 
exception of Peter and Paul, took all the part in the 
primitive missions which is ascribed to them by the 
Church of the third century. The Episcopal notions 
of that age have colored the history of the first cen- 
tury. Just as to St. Peter was attributed the foun- 
dation and government of the Church at Antioch, 
which, as we have seen, was formed without his 
assistance, so it is very possible that an attempt should 
have been made in later times to refer to the Apostles 
the propagation of the faith in countries where the 
weight of the labor really rested on simple evangelists. 
We must, therefore, accept with reserve the testi- 
mony of historians, and never forget that their con- 
ception of the apostolate is not in all points identical 
with that of the primitive Church. They regard the 


(Abdiz, “‘ Babylonz Episcopi de Historia certaminis apostolici,” Libri 
X. Edidit Wolfgangus Lazius, 1552.) It is a collection of absurd 
fables, with a strong monkish coloring. The Apostles are there made 
to celebrate mass, and preach sermons with three heads, before under- 
going the most barbarous tortures. ‘These absurd narratives have as 
their basis the ‘‘ Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha.” (Tischendorf edi- 
tion, Lipsiz, 1851.) See Thilo, “‘Codex Apocryphus N. Test.,” 
Lipsiz, 1833, and the ‘Codex Apocryphus” of Fabricius. We 
shall make much use of these writings when we presently trace the 
history of oral tradition in the second century. The ‘ Acta Cancto- 
rum,” and too often the ““ Memoires” of Tillemont, reproduce all 
these fables. 


206 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Apostles as true metropolitan bishops, and cannot 
suppose a Church founded without their participation. 

After the Council at Jerusalem, the Apostles 
disperse to meet no more. James, the brother of the 
Lord, continues to exercise paramount influence over 
the Church of that city ; the holiness of his life, the 
form of his*piety, the largeness of heart with which 
he fulfills his mission of conciliation, all contribute to 
strengthen it. Far from appearing as an adversary 
of Paul, James welcomes him, on his last visit to 
Jerusalem, with brotherly affection, and advises him 
to join himself to those Christian Jews who were 
about to fulfill in the Temple the vow of the Nazarite. 
We have no further details of his life from this time 
till his martyrdom ; but we possess his epistle, from 
which we shall presently gather his doctrine. In it 
we shall find faithfully reproduced all the traits of his 
noble character—his piety, at once scrupulous and 
elevated ; his stern and practical spirit; and, in the 
oriental coloring of his language, the reflection of the 
old prophets of Israel. 

Jude, the brother of James, and consequently of the 
Lord, also took an active part in the propagation of 
the Christian faith. It is not possible to determine 
from his epistle what was the principal sphere of his 
work. It may, however, be inferred, from his vehe- 
ment denunciation of false teachers, that he had come 
in contact with the heretics of the Churches of Co- 
losse and Ephesus, and that he resided in the coun- 
tries where the first germs of Gnosticism appeared.* 
History gives no exact statement with reference to 
the other Apostles. The various traditions, however, 


* See Note H, at the end of the volume. 


BOOK? IR——EIRSLT- CENLDURY. 207 


connected with their names, enable us to follow the 
track of the missionaries of the primitive Church. It 
is of far less importance for us to know their names, 
and to be sure that they were really apostles, than 
to verify their triumphs over the paganism of the East 
and West. Accepted with this precaution, tradition 
sheds light upon the path of apostolic missions. 
Paul, in his rapid journeys through Asia, could not 
have preached the Gospel to all the inhabitants of 
those wide regions. He had succeeded in founding, 
in a short space of time, important Churches, but 
these were surrounded by unbelieving and super- 
stitious masses. It was, therefore, very necessary 
that the missions of the other Apostles should occupy, 
to some extent, the same ground gone over by him. 
According to the testimony of tradition, Cappadocia, 
Galatia, and Bithynia were evangelized by the Apostle 
Andrew, Peter’s brother.* He is said to have also 
penetrated into Scythia, and thence into Thrace and 
Macedonia.} 
' The Churches of Colosse, Laodicea, and Hierap- 
olis, founded by Epaphras and St. Paul in Phrygia, 
shed abroad the pure light of truth in that classic 
land of superstition. But the epistles of the Apostles 
themselves show how severely the triumph of Chris- 
tianity was there contested. The work begun had to 
be constantly renewed; therefore, the Apostle Philip 
went to settle in that country. He took up his 
abode at Hierapolis with his daughters, one of whom 
had the gift of prophecy. His influence appears 
* Niceph...** Flict..ecl.,” ii,’ 30: f fuseb., ““ἩΠΞΙ. cel nis 
1 Nicephorus, ‘* Hist. Eccles.,” ii, 39. Ὅς κεκοίμηται ἐν Ἱεραπόλεε. 
(Iusebius, v. 24.) According to Eusebius, two of Philip’s daughters 


208 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


to have been great over the whole Church of Asia 
Minor. 

.The Christian mission does more than consolidate 
the work already commenced ; it has an irresistible 
power of expansion. Matthew carries the divine 
message into Arabia; his Gospel was subsequently 
found in the language of that country.* He is soon 
followed by Bartholomew and Nathanael, who had at 
first accompanied Philip into Phrygia.t Matthias 
devotes himself to Ethiopia ;f James, the son of 
Alphzus, to Egypt. Simon Zelotes evangelizes 
Mauritania and Libya ; he is said even to have visited 
Britain,§ but this rests on the doubtful authority of 
Nicephorus. Mesopotamia is believed to have been 
traversed by Judas Thaddeus, who had his station at 
Edessa, where the new religion met with a very favor- 
able reception.|| The extreme eastern point of the 
primitive mission seems to have been the western 
frontier of India. Thomas is supposed to have 
preached the Gospel in the district adjoining Par- 


continued virgins; while, according to Clement of Alexandria, they 
married. (*‘‘ Stromat.,” iii, 6.) Perhaps Eusebius confounded Philip 
the Apostle with Philip the Evangelist. 

* Ὁ Πώνταινος εἰς ᾿Ινδοὺς ἐλθξιν λέγεται ἔνθα λόγος αὐτὸν εὕὑρξιν τὸ 
κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον. (Eusebius, ““ Hist. Eccles.,” v, 10.) Soph- 
ronimus understands by the Indians the inhabitants of Arabia Felix. 
(Fabricius, ‘* Lux Salutaris,” p. 104.) 

+ Eusebius, v, 10. Nicephorus (ii, 39) asserts that he had temples 
built in Asia; this gives us a measure of his historical value. 

t Nicephorus, ii, 40. The Ethiopian mission has been often 
ascribed to Matthew. His name might easily be confounded with 
Matthias. 

§ Nicephorus, ii, 40. 

| This is the origin of the legend about the correspondence between 
Jesus Christ and Abgarus, King of Edessa. (Eusebius, i, 13.) 


BOOK Ii.—FIRST CENTURY. 209 


thia.* Itis certain that very early traces of Christian- 
ity are found in India. In the time of Constantine, a 
missionary who returned from that country asserted 
that he had met with Christians professing evangeli- 
cal doctrine in its most ancient form. 

If we endeavor to derive from the tradition of the 
Church any thing more than these very general 
indications about the Apostles, we enter the vague 
region of fable. We know from Eusebius that Philip 
died at Hierapolis, and that his tomb was there to be 
seen.t The apocryphal Acts of the Apostles are 
prolific in details of their sufferings. According to 
these legendary accounts, Andrew was sentenced to 
crucifixion by the Proconsul of Arabia, who was en- 
raged at .the conversion of his wife.t Matthew is 
said to have been burned ;§ Thomas to have been 
pierced through with a lance; || and Bartholomew 
beheaded.§[ It is impossible to ascertain whether 
these traditions have any historical foundation. Be 
this as it may, it is certain that the first Christian 
missionaries in these remote countries fell in the 
midst of their enemies, and the obscurity of their 
death is the best guaranty of their heroic fidelity. 
“These lights of the world,” eloquently says a dis- 
tinguished theologian, “have disappeared from our 
sight, but we behold the world illuminated by them. 


* Nicephorus (ii, 40) says of Thomas: Ὃς καὶ τὸν ἐπ᾿ AiBioriac και 
Ἰνδοὺς κλῆρον λαχὼν. Origen, according to Eusebius, (ili, 2,) ascribed 
the mission among the Parthians to Thomas; but their country 
bordered on India. The narrative of the missionary contemporary 
with Constantine is found in Philostorgius, ili, 4. 

+ Eusebius, iii, I. 

t** Acta Apost.,”? Tischendorf edition, p. 128. 

§ Ibid., p. 129. | Ibid., p. 239. q Ibid., p. 249. 

1: 


210 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


They sought not their own glory, but they are known 
to God ; and thousands of souls saved by their word 
owe to them their entrance into heaven.”* 

We have more precise information as to the life of 
St. Peter after the Council at Jerusalem. From that 
time, however, his part is as inconspicuous in actual 
history as it is brilliant in legend. Paul fills the 
whole scene. Nothing could give stronger proof of 
Peter’s growth in humility than the fact of his con- 
senting to take the second place, after having, more 
than any other, contributed to lay the foundation of 
the Church by his courage and energy. It is clear 
that he has come under the strong influence of Paul ; 
of this his epistle is the surest evidence. Unless we 
repudiate all proof, external and internal, it is impos- 
sible not to admit that the good understanding 
between these two Apostles is no invention of the 
writer of the Acts. Peter, however, according to 
the agreement voluntarily made at the Council at 
Jerusalem, devoted himself almost exclusively to the 
preaching of the Gospel among his countrymen. He 
passed by the great Churches founded by Paul in 
Phrygia and Asia Minor,f and chose as his center of 
action a city of once unrivaled celebrity—Babylon— 
where we find him shortly before his death. 1 Peter 
v, 13. According to Josephus, thousands of Jews 
had emigrated to that city. { The Jewish colony in 
Babylonia must have been very important, since two 


strongholds were necessary for the safe keeping of 
* Lange, Kirchen Geschichte, vol. ii, p. 403. 
+ The Epistle of Peter, addressed to these Churches, does not prove, 
as has been asserted, that he was at their head. We need only to 


remember how strong was at this time the sense of Christian oneness. 
{ Jesephds, *“Ant. Oey an, τ᾿ 


BOOK AL.=—FIRST CENTURY. ΖΕῚ 


the offerings destined for the Temple at Jerusalem, 
and an escort of several thousands guarded the sacred 
treasure as far as Judza, lest it should fall into the 
hands of the Parthians.* It is clear from these de- 
tails given by the Jewish historian, that the syna- 
gogues of Babylonia continued in close connection 
with the religious center of their nation. After the 
destruction of Jerusalem, the rabbinical school of that 
country acquired very great influence. The Apostle 
Peter, therefore, found there a vast field of labor ; he 
had an entire people to evangelize. The advocates 
of his primacy, in their eagerness to prove, at any 
price, that he resided at Rome during the greater 
part of his apostolic career, maintain that when in his 
Epistle he speaks of Babylon, he intends the mystic 
Babylon of the Apocalypse, or pagan Rome. But, 
in the first place, the Epistle of Peter was writ- 
ten before the Apocalypse and the persecution under 
Nero, that is to say, before the time when pagan 
Rome was to the Church what Babylon had been to 
the Jews of old. Upto this time the Christians had 
had much more to suffer from the Jews than from 
the Gentiles. It is worthy of remark, also, that the 
style of Peter in his Epistle is not raised to the lyric 
tone of ancient prophecy, and its conclusion is as 
simple as possible. There can, then, be no reason 
for attaching a far-fetched symbolic meaning to a 
designation perfectly clear in itself. Peter had suc- 
ceeded in founding a Church at Babylon;7 this 
Church had become a center of light to all the Jew- 
+ Josephus, Ant.” XVIII, ix, 1. 


+ This is the sense we attach to the words 7 ἐν Βαβυλῶνι 
συνεκλεκτὴ. 


212. EARLY YEARS: OF ΠΕ CHRISTIAN CHURCH: 


ish colony. Silas, one of the companions of Paul, 
joined Peter at Babylon, and the description given by 
him of the critical condition of the Churches in Asia 
Minor doubtless led the Apostle to address to them 
a letter of consolation.* Persecution was, in truth, 
imminent ; like a violent tempest, it was giving pre- 
cursive tokens of its approach, and it was well that 
words of earnest exhortation should be multiplied on 
the eve of so terrible a conflict. Peter pleaded with 
holy eloquence, magnifying, like Paul, the greatness 
and glory of Christian endurance, and himself prepar- 
ing to seal with his blood his. witness to the truth. 
In his Epistle we feel that he has reached that full 
maturity of the Christian life which is itself an antic- 
ipation of heaven. The power of the grace of God 
is magnified in the greatness of the change wrought 
in him. This hot and hasty man, who could one day 
draw his sword against Malchus and the next deny 
his Lord, now displays the patience and gentleness 
of his Master; this ignorant and prejudiced Jew has 
risen to the height of a broad and spiritual Chris- 
tianity. The equilibrium of his nature has been 
restored, his zeal refined, his energy at once brought 
under control, and fortified against the weaknesses of 
the flesh. To use his own image, the pure gold has 
been tried in the fire, (1 Peter i, 7,) and, as we see 
the transformation in Peter’s character, we feel that 
there is no nature so headstrong and rebellious that 


* Baronius (‘‘ Annals,”? An. 45) gives the year 45 as the date of the 
Epistle of Peter; but it is evident that it was really written much 
later, for Silas was with Peter when he wrote, and Silas did not leave 
Paul till after his first journey into Europe, that is to say, after the 
year 52. Acts xviii, 18. ε 


BOOK, IT.=-FIRSE, CENTURY. 213 


its alloy cannot be purged by the process of the 
Divine Refiner. * 

Did Peter go from Babylon to Rome? This is a 
much disputed question. It is impossible to answer 
it with certainty, but we incline to a reply in the 
affirmative. It is very necessary to guard against 
party prepossessions. If an historian, wedded to the 
hierarchical theory, has an interest in proving the 
sojourn of Peter at Rome, an historian espousing 
Opposite opinions may erroneously imagine he 
has an interest in showing the contrary. Both 
are therefore bound to weigh with scrupulous 
impartiality the testimony of Christian antiquity. 
For ourselves, we find it impossible to suppose 
that Peter was at Rome under Claudius and at the 
commencement of the reign of Nero. Besides 
the reasons we have already pointed out, we lay stress 
on the incontestable fact that the name of Peter does 
not once occur in the epistle written by Paul to the 
Romans, nor in any of the other letters of that 
Apostle dated from Rome. Admitting the hypothesis 
of Baronius and writers of his school, such an omis- 
sion would be inexplicable ; but, on the other hand, 
we are inclined to believe that Peter did spend the 
last year of his life at Rome. We fully admit the 
uncertainty and contradictoriness of tradition on this 
point. We do not attach much importance to the 
indirect allusion in the epistle of Clement.t The 
passage of Ignatius which refers to the martyrdom of 
Peter is apocryphal. His contest with Simon Ma- 
gus, described in the “ Apocryphal Acts,” is obviously 


* See Note I, at the end of the volume, on the Second Epistle of Peter. 
7 Clement, ‘‘ Epistle to the Corinthians,” c. v. 


214. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


legendary and absurd.* Dyonisius, of Corinth, posi- 
tively affirms Peter’s sojourn at Rome; but his tes- 
timony is invalidated by a palpable error, for, against 
all historical evidence, he attributes to Peter a share 
in the foundation of the Church at Corinth,} which, — 
beyond question, was the work of Paul alone. 

The fragment of the preaching of Peter, quoted by 
Cyprian, belongs to a document which, though very 
ancient, is nevertheless apocryphal.t Irenzeus§ and 
Tertullian, || who both assert that Peter died at Rome, 
write at a period when many of the fables of the first 
century found ready currency. In spite, however, 
of all these errors of detail and absurd combinations, 
the unanimity of tradition as to Peter’s stay at 
Rome appears to us of weight. It is so much the 
more worthy of credence, because several of the 
“Fathers’—for example, Tertullian and Irenaetus—had 
no interest in establishing the primacy of the Bishop 
of Rome. We find, then, no difficulty in admitting 
that Peter passed the closing days of his life in the. 
capital of the empire, and we see no conclusion de- 
ducible from this fact in favor of the hierarchy.4] The 
Church of Rome had been founded many years be- 
fore, and had long been molded by the powerful in- 


Ἐς Acta Petri et Pauli,” Pie 

+ See the passage in Dyonisius: Γάμφω (Πέτρος καὶ ἸΠαὔὖλος) καὶ εἰς 
τὴν ἡμετέραν Κόρινθον φυτεύσαντες ἡμᾶς, ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν: ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ 
εἰς τῆν ᾿Ιταλίαν ὁμόσε διδάξαντες, ἐμαρτύρηφαν κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν καίρον. 
(Husebius, *“ Hist.“ Eccles.” 11, 25.) 

1 Cyprian, ‘‘ De non iterando baptismo.” 

ὃ Tod Πετροῦ καὶ tod Παύλου ἐν Ῥωμῃ εὐαγγελίζομενων. (Irenceus, 
“ἸΑαν. Heeres,” ili, -1.) 

§ “Ubi Petrus passioni dominice adeequatur.” (Tertullian, “ Pree- 
script.,”” 36.) 

4] The opposite opinion to that we have expressed is very fully 
stated in Blumhart’s ‘* History of the Establishment of Christianity.” 


BOOK. T1.——FIRST CENTURY. 215 


fluence of Paul. Peter went to Rome to preach the 
Gospel, and he soon paid with his life the penalty of 
his faithfulness to Christ. He was never Bishop of 
Rome, and was not called to confer any episcopal 
dignity, for the simple reason that the old demo- 
cratic organization of the Church was at that time, 
as we shall show, in full vigor. The influence of 
Peter at Rome was further diminished by his igno- 
rance of the Latin tongue ; for, according to Eusebius, 
Mark, who had accompanied him from Babylon, acted 
as his interpreter. From Rome, Mark went to 
Egypt, and a tradition, which there seems no reason 
to discredit, ascribes to him the foundation of the 
Church at Alexandria, which was subsequently to 
become the metropolis of high Christian culture.* 
Many legends are linked with the names of the 
other disciples of the Apostles, and to each has been 
assigned a large share in the missions of the first 
century ; but it is absolutely impossible to discrimi- 
nate between the false and the true in this medley 
of fable.t There is no need to have recourse to the 
embellishments of tradition, in order to bring out the 
grandeur of the apostolic labors. Unadorned history 
amply justifies these words of Eusebius: “The apostles 
and disciples of the Saviour, scattered over the whole 
world, preached the Gospel every-where.” = The bless- 
ed light which had risen in the East was diffused over 
a large portion of the world.§ “In thus establishing 


* Eusebius, ‘‘ Hist.,” ii, 16. Εἰς τὴν Αλεξάνδριαν παῤῥησίᾳ τὸν 
Χριστὸν κηρύττων. (Nicephorus, 11, 44.) 

+ See Fabricius, “‘ Lux Evangelii,” pp. 115-117. 

} Eusebius, ἐν Hist. Eccles.,’’ iii, 1. 

§ See in Fabricius a list of Churches founded in the apostolic age, 


pp- 83-92. 


216 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


the kingdom of Jesus Christ,” says Theodoret, “ the 
Christians made use of no carnal weapons ; they em- 
ployed no other force than that of persuasive words 
to demonstrate the excellence of his divine laws. 
They fulfilled their missions in the midst of dangers, 
enduring violence and wrong of every description in . 
the cities through which they passed, being scourged, 
tortured, cast into dungeons, subjected to every kind 
of suffering. But though the bearers of these divine 
laws might be killed, the laws themselves were death- 
less. They proved only the more potent after the 
death of those who promulgated them, and in spite 
of the resistance of the Romans and the barbarians, 
they continued in undiminished force; and from 
the graves in which the Romans sought to bury the 
memory of these fishermen and tent-makers, that 
memory sprang into new and nobler life.” * 


δ III. Mode of Primitive Evangelization. Origin 
of the first Three Gospels. 


Having now described the missions of the primi- 
tive Church in their rapid and fruitful expansion, we 
must characterize the method adopted at this period 
in the propagation of the truth. “ Faith cometh by 
hearing,” says St. Paul, (Rom. x, 17,) and he sums 
up, in these words, the leading principle and practice 
of the apostolic Church, which was much more occu- 
pied with preaching the Gospel than with the com- 
position of new sacred books. The Apostles were, 
for the most part, unlettered men, and they would not 
be likely to write except under pressure of necessity. 


* Οὐχ ὅπλοις χρησάμενοι ἀλλὰ πείθοντες. (Theodoret, ‘‘ Thera- 
peut. gent.,”” p. 115; “‘ Opera,” vol. iv, p. 610.) 


BOGK+ if:——EIRS EP -CENLTURY. 217 


Their Master had left them no instructions on this 
point, and he himself had written nothing. He had 
founded the Church by his word.* Again, the ex- 
pectation of his speedy return in glory was then gen- 
eral. They thought that at any moment he might 
appear in the clouds to judge the world. They had, 
therefore, no motive for concerning themselves with 
a distant future, and for committing to writing mem- 
ories which were still living in the heart of the 
Church. The Church itself, but partially freed from 
the bondage of Judaism, found in the sacred books 
of God’s ancient people a solid foundation for its 
faith ; and the incontestable truth of what they be- 
lieved was sufficiently confirmed to the Christians by 
the declarations of the prophets. Endowed with the 
richest gifts of the Spirit, they were perpetually con- 
scious of the pure and life-giving breath of inspira- 
tion. Paul boldly declared that the new covenant 
was not in the letter, but in the Spirit. 2 Cor. i, 3-7 ; 
Rom. vii, 6. | 

None of the expressions by which preaching is 
spoken of in the New Testament can apply to written 
documents. That which is intended is always the 
living word, the solemn proclamation of the truth 
from the lips of witnesses.—| When the Gospel is 
spoken of, the reference is not to a book, but to the 
substance of the apostolic preaching—to the good tid- 
ings of salvation, as the etymology of the word signi- 
fies.-- “The Apostles of Christ,’ says Eusebius, 


* We have mentioned the absurd legend given by Eusebius about 
the correspondence of Jesus Christ with the King of Edessa. (Euse- 
bums, “*Histz Hecles.,” 1, 13;) 

+ Adyo¢. (Jamesi, 22.) Δόγος ἀκοῆς. (1 Thess. ii, 13.) Κηρύγμα. 
(Vitus't,.3 5. 5 Com 7 =r Tim: i, 11 ;: 2: Tim. τς; 2.) 


218 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


“purified in life, and adorned with all the virtues of 
the soul, but rough and uncultivated in speech, up- 
held simply by the power of Christ, through which 
they worked so many miracles—preached the king- 
dom of God to the whole world. They were not con- 
cerned to write books, being put in charge with a far 
grander and superhuman ministry.’* 

For a long time the Church preferred the living to 
the written, word. “If 1} met,” ‘says Papias,. “a 
brother who. had known the Apostles, I asked him 
carefully what they had said—what Andrew, Peter, 
Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew had said. 
I thought I could gather more from a living testimony 
than from books.’’} It was very natural that, at a 
time when the first generation of Christians was still 
alive, their words should have been preferred to their 
writings. The Apostles themselves attached more 
importance to their preaching than to their letters ; 
they thought they could gain a stronger influence 
over the Churches by their presence than by their 
epistles, else they would have been willing to remain 
at a distance from them, and would not have so fre- 
quently expressed a desire to visit them again. Rom. 
xy, (92 pr Con xu, τ ὍΣ 2 Cor. mig iO. 272 Blavins 
many things to write unto you,” says John, “1 would 
not write with paper and ink, but I trust to come unto 
you, and speak face to face,that our joy may be full.” 

It is in no degree our intention to detract from the 

* Σπουδῆς τῆς περὶ TO Aoyoyeadeiv μικρὰν ποιούμενοι φροντίδα. 
(Eusebius, ‘‘ Hist. Eccles.,” ii, 24.) 

4Ovd γὰρ τὰ ἐκ τῶν βιβλίων τοσοῦτόν WE ὠφελεῖν ὑπελάμβανον ὅσον 
τὰ παρὰ ζώσης φωνῆς. (Eusebius, ‘* Hist. Eccles.,”’ ili, 39.) 

{2 John 12. On this question see Gieseler, ‘‘ Historisch-kritischer 
Versuch tber die Enstehung der Evangelien,”’ p. 70. 


BOOK It.—FERST CENTURY, 219 


importance of the written Gospels, but to throw, as 
far as may be possible within the limits imposed by 
our subject, some light on the question of their origin. 
It is proved that during many years the word of God 
was freely propagated by the living voice, and that 
the most flourishing Churches the world has known 
were founded by the preaching of the early mission- 
aries. It was of vital importance, however, that the 
great facts of Christianity should be transmitted to 
posterity through a safer medium than mere oral 
tradition. After being set forth in several writings, 
which were not handed down beyond the first cen- 
tury, (Luke 1, 1,) they were cast into a permanent 
form in our canonical Gospels, which bear so mani- 
festly the seal of inspiration. We shall not do more 
here than indicate the origin of the first three Gos- 
pels, which date from this period.* 

The origin of the Gospel of Mark is thus stated by 
Papias, who is himself only the echo of John the 
Presbyter, or the Elder: “Mark, having been Peter’s 
interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, 
the words and actions of Jesus Christ. His one 
great concern was to give, unaltered and unadulter- 
ated, that which he had heard.’+ Clement of Alex- 
andria adds, that Mark wrote his Gospel at the express 


* On the question of the sources of the synoptics, see my work, 
“ὦ Jesus Christ : His Life and Times,” Book I, c. iv. 

t Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενομένος ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν ὠκριβῶς 
ἔγραψεν, οὐ μὲν τοι τάξει. (Eusebius, ‘‘ Hist. Eccles.,”’ iii, 39 ;-vi, 14.) 
It has been maintained that these words could not apply to our Gos- 
pel of Mark, which has, say the objectors, as much order as the rest. 
Let us observe, however: 1st. That the discourses of the Saviour are 
not grouped in Mark as in Matthew. - 2d. That we do not find in it 
the chronological order followed by Luke. 3d. That there are in 
Mark strange omissions; for instance, there is no account of the birth 


220 EARLY YEARS ΘΕ THE CHRISTIAN VZCHURCH, 


request ‘of the hearers “of - Peter.* 77 Luke. himsels 
clearly informs us of the motive which led him to 
write an account of the Gospel history. “ Foras- 
much as many have taken in hand to set forth in or- 
der a declaration of those things which are most 
surely believed among us, it seemed good to me also, 
having had perfect understanding of all things from 
the very first, to write unto thee in order, most ex- 
cellent Theophilus.” Luke 1, 1-3. Matthew, accord- 
ing to Eusebius, wrote his Gospel in Hebrew on the 
eve of starting on his distant missions. Papias says, 
“Matthew made a collection in Hebrew of the dis- 
courses of the Lord Jesus, and each interpreted them 
as he was able.” f 


SIV. First Roman Persecution of Christianity. 
Persecution in Fudea. Death of Fames, the brother 
of the Lord. 


Persecution always followed step by step in the 
track of Christian missions, endeavoring to sweep 
away their glorious results by torrents of blood, and 


of Jesus Christ. The expression οὐ τάξει seems, therefore, justified. 
(Tholuck, ‘‘ Glanbwurdigkeit der evangel. Gesch.,”’ 2d ed., p. 242.) 
There are a number of Latinisms in Mark’s Gospel which confirm the 
testimony of Papias as to its being written at Rome. 

* Eusebius, 111, 24. 

+ Mar6dtog μὲν οὖν ‘EGpaide διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια συνεγραψάτο. Ἡρμή- 
vevoe δ᾽ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος. (Eusebius, ‘‘ Hist. Eccl.,” iii, 39.) 
According to Schleiermacher, the meaning of the last phrase was, that 
each gave his own interpretation of the discourses of Christ. It ap- 
pears to us, that by comparing the word ἡρμήνευσε with the word 
ἑρμηνευτῆς, applied to Mark, we arrive at the sense we have given. 
From this passage it appears that we have only a translation of the 
first Gospel. This explains those points in the narrative which to the 
direct statement of an eye-witness present real difficulties, as for in- 
stance, Matt. xxi, 2, 5, 7. 


BOOK IT.—=FIRST ΘΕ ΠΥ. 221 


succeeding only in watering and fructifying the 
buried seeds. We have already seen the outbreak 
of persecution in Judza, giving to the Church its 
first martyrs. Paul had to encounter it in all his 
missionary journeys. We have left him at Rome 
loaded with chains, and awaiting his judgment. Up 
to the year 64 A. D., hostility to Christianity did not 
assume an official character. Opposition was offered, 
now in one city, now in another, but the Church was 
not as yet put under the ban of the empire. Its 
growth, however, had been so rapid, and its success 
so marked, that a terrible collision was inevitable 
with that imperial power which was the stronghold 
of all that Christianity came to destroy, and in which 
was personified that ancient order of things, the very 
basis of which Christianity was to undermine. 

This sanguinary collision took place in the latter 
part of the reign of Nero. Paganism could not have 
found a fitter representative than this Emperor. Per- 
secutions against the Church must needs break forth 
at Rome, for the doctrine of the Church was on one 
essential point directly antagonistic to the theories of 
the ancient world. In that world, religion was closely 
associated with political organization. Polytheism 
had produced, as its natural result, State religions, 
which trampled on therights of conscience. The in- 
dividual had no personal guaranty, and must, under 
every circumstance, sacrifice himself to the State. 
Freedom of thought could only exist in the presence 
of religions thus established, by means of reserva- 
tions and artifices strongly savoring of hypocrisy. 
The light in which religion was regarded by pagan 
antiquity is forcibly described by Cicero: “No one,” 


929» EARLY. YEARS, OF THE CHARIS TIANSCHURCH. 


he says, “has a right to have particular gods; 
no one may introduce new or strange gods not 
recognized by the law of the State.’* Now the 
Christians most evidently did proclaim a new god 
within the empire. ‘This accusation had been already 
brought against Paul at Philippi. “These men,” it 
was said of Paul and Barnabas, “teach customs 
which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to ob- 
serve, being Romans.” Acts xvi, 21. Christianity 
was not formally denounced as an unlawful religion 
until later, but its character of novelty placed it, from 
the first, at issue with the law. It might, perhaps, 
have even longer escaped the attention of the Caesars 
if these had not been rendered, by a concurrence of 
events, peculiarly hostile to religious innovation. 
The Emperors were repeatedly troubled at this period 
by the inroads of strange superstitions. They were 
thus made conscious of the agitation of men’s minds, 
and of the dull discontent which was pervading the 
ancient world. They had repeatedly taken severe 
measures for the repression of these dangerous nov- 
elties, with a view to restore the dignity of the national 
religion. A senatus consultum was passed in the 
reign of Claudius, which commanded the priests to 
attend vigilantly to the renewed observance of the 
ancient ceremonies of the Haruspices— lest,” as we 
read in the recital, “the ancient usages of Italy fall 
into desuetude through the prevalence of foreign 
superstitions.” | It is clear that the imperial policy 
was eminently unfavorable to the introduction of ori- 


* “€ Nisi publice adscitos.”? (Cicero, ‘* De Legibus,”’ ii, 8.) 

{ Viderent pontifices que retinenda firmandaque haruspicum ne 
vetustissima Italiz disciplina per desidiam exolesceret. (Tacitus, 
ΣΡ ΠΑ] Ξ 5 StS 1553) 


ΒΟΘΙΚΤΎ ΞΘ ΒΥ -CENEURY. ony 


ental religions; it was awake and on its guard ; 
Christianity, therefore, was in grave danger. Bya 
strange contradiction, the new religion was rendered 
obnoxious equally by the features in which it resem- 
bled, and in which it differed from, Judaism. On the 
one hand, it was, by the mass of pagans, confounded 
with Judaism.; on the other hand, the Jews them- 
selves were its most bitter and most subtle foes and 
calumniators. The Jews were, as we know, objects 
of hatred and contempt to the pagans. Their spirit 
of insubordination constantly awakened the suspicions 
of the imperial power. Suetonius informs us that 
Claudius had issued a decree banishing all Jews from 
Rome, as a punishment for their constant agitations.* 
It was, then, no recommendation to the Church to 
pass for a Jewish sect. But while thus confounded 
by the majority of the Gentiles with this execrated 
people, it was vehemently repudiated by the syna- 
gogue, which found means at Rome, as elsewhere, to 
stir up the passions of the populace by artful insinua- 
tions against the Christians. The Church was thus 
at once implicated in the unpopularity of the Jews 
and made the victim of Jewish intrigues. But there 
was a deeper reason for the passionate opposition so 
quickly shown to the new religion, in the incompati- 
bility of the principles of the Christian life with the 
corruption of the ancient world. Paganism felt itself 
judged and condemned by a purity of faith and prac- 

* Judzeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulsit.” 
(Suetonius, ‘* Claudius,’ 25.) The hypothesis of a tumult incited by 
the Christians is not tenable. The Church of Rome did not acquire 
any importance till after this date. Suetonius is, then, in error when he 


accuses the Christians of rebellion; but the decree issued by Claudius 


cannot be brought in question. 


224 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


tice of which, till then, it had not had even a concep- 
tion. Christianity cleaves like a lightning flash the 
thick darkness of antiquity. At once irritated and 
humiliated, Roman paganism will treat the Church as 
Jewish formalism has treated the Lord Christ. 
“Away with him,” rang the cry through the streets 
of Jerusalem ; “ Away with him,” was now re-echoed 
from the walls of Rome. 

The determining cause of the persecution under 
Nero was the astonishing success of the new religion 
in the capital of the world. It had been tolerated 
so long as it could be ignored. The apocryphal 
letter from Pilate to Tiberius,. which is said to have 
led that Emperor to'propose to the senate to admit the 
God of the Christians into the Roman Pantheon, has 
no marks of authenticity.* It is certain that the 
Emperors took no heed of Christianity till they were 
constrained to do so by the popular voice. The first 
persecution was in reality a satisfaction given to the 
hatred of the populace. We find no trace of edicts 
proscribing Christianity in a general manner. Legal 
persecution was not declared until subsequently. 
Nero played the part enacted by Pilate in the cruci- 
fixion of Christ. He sacrificed the innocent to the 
blind fury of a misled crowd. He added to his 
villainy by casting on the Christians the imputation 
of having set fire to the city. But he only chose 
them as his victims because public execration was 
loud against them. “To put to silence the rumors 
raised against himself,” says Tacitus, “ Nero laid his 

* This letter may be read in the Apocryphal Gospels, Tischendorf 


edit., Ὁ. 411. See also Tertullian, ‘‘ Apologia,” ‘c. xxi; Eusebius, 
eobdist, Heel. ado: 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 225 


own crime on certain persons rendered odious by their 
heinous offenses, and whom the people called Chris- 
tians ; on these he inflicted the most cruel punish- 
ments.”* It was this blind and cruel popular hatred 
which gave occasion for the first persecution. It is 
important to ascertain the grounds of this animosity, 
and to investigate the calumnies brought against the 
Christians. 

These calumnies have no connection with the subtle 
and perfidious accusations of the philosophers. We 
are brought face to face with popular prejudices in 
their grossest form. It would be a serious anachro- | 
nism to transplant into the first century, and into the 
midst of-the Roman populace, the learned objections 
of a Celsus or a Lucian. Tacitus himself puts us on 
the track of the charges which, in the year 65, were 
current in Rome against the Christians. ‘They 
were convicted,” according to his statement, “not of 
the burning of Rome, but of the crime of hating the 
human race.” + We discern in this accusation the 
confusion, so common, of the Church with the syna- 
gogue. The Jews did actually merit this accusation 
by their intractable pride and arrogant contempt of 
all other nations. This prejudice against the Chris- 
tians, arising from a mistaken identification of them 
with their bitterest enemies, was probably strength- 
ened by warnings uttered by them of a coming 
terrible judgment of God. They proclaimed the con- 


* ἐς Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos, et queesitissimis pcenis 
affecit quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat.” 
(Tacitus, ‘‘ Annals,” xv, 44.) 

+ ‘*Haud perinde in crimine incendii quam odio humani generis 
convicti sunt.” 


15 


226 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


demnation of sinful humanity; they painted its doom 
in prophetic pictures; they borrowed the strong 
colors of the ancient seers to produce a salutary 
terror. They spoke, doubtless, of those flames of 
judgment which should consume a godless world. It 
was easy, by materializing that which was spiritual, 
to represent them as dangerous conspirators, capable 
of causing the conflagration they predicted, and of 
bringing about by their own efforts the accomplish- 
ment of their prophecies. Their preaching must 
have been thus travestied to furnish the shadow of a 
pretext for the absurd accusation brought against 
them. 

When Tacitus adds, that they were odious for their 
crimes and abominations,* he doubtiess alludes to 
the infamous reports so long circulated against the 
Christians, to which Justin Martyr subsequently gave 
an indignant denial. ‘“ Doyou believe,” he exclaims, 
“that we devour men, and that, after our evening 
meal, we extinguish the lights to cover with darkness 
a hideous debauch?”” These very calumnies are 
repeated in detail in the “ Octavius” of Minutius 
Felix. “Must we not groan,” says the champion of 
paganism, “when men belonging to ἃ wretched, 
illegal, desperate faction rise up against the gods? a 
sect loving darkness, hating the day ; it is silent in 
public, but loud in its secret retreats ; it despises the 
gods and mocks at sacred things. Its members call 
each other brothers and sisters to add incest to idol- 
atry. They drink the blood of a child, divide its 
members among them, make a covenant over this 
horrid sacrifice, and are pledged to silence by their 


* ἐς Klacitia pudenda.” 


BOOK’ ΞΕ .CENTURY. 227) 


common participation in crime.’* “We are ac- 
cused,” says Tertullian, “of practicing infanticide in 
our sacred rites, of then feeding on the flesh of the 
victim, and concluding our feasts with incest.” f 
These quotations from the “ Fathers” are a true com- 
mentary on the words of Tacitus. In the next cen- 
tury we shall meet again with these vile accusations, 
with the addition of other yet more treacherous 
insinuations ; but it is obvious that those now cited 
were the basis of all the rest. It is easy to see 
that they are a gross misrepresentation of Christian 
worship, and, in particular, of the Lord’s Supper, in 
which the sacred symbols of the body of Christ were 
dispensed. The Church had cunning adversaries 
who knew how to malign her artfully, and who, 
observing the absence of all outward display in her 
worship, brought against her the charge of atheism. 
When we remember that through Poppzea the Jews 
of Rome had at this time the favor and the ear of 
Nero, we shall wonder the less at the success of their 
intrigues. One of the most ancient writers of the 
Church, Melito of Sardis, undoubtedly had these 
underhand practices in view when he said: “ Nero 
and Domitian, incited by the councils of certain 
malicious persons, have endeavored to bring reproach 
on our religion. They have bequeathed to their suc- 
cessors these false accusations against us.” ὁ These 


* ἐς Homines deploratz illicitee ac desperate factionis. Latebrosa 
et lucifugax natio....se promiscue appellant fratres et sorores.” 
(Minutius Felix, ‘‘ Octavius,” c. viii, ix.) 

+  Dicimur sceleratissimi de sacramento infanticidii et pabulo inde 
et post convivium incesto.” (Terttll., ‘‘ Apol.,” vii.) 

t'¥r0 τίνων βασκάτων ἀνθρώπων ἀναπέισθεντες. (Routh, “ Reliquize 


pacts,” -i,-p. ΤΠ.) 


228 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


calumnies would have produced no effect, however, if 
the Church had not increased in Rome in a remark- 
able manner. “This detestable superstition,” says 
Tacitus, “ broke out on all sides, not only in Judea, but 
in the city of Rome itself. Tacitus might have added 
that it had found its way even into the palace of the 
Ceesars, for St. Paul wrote to the Philippians at the 
same period: “My bonds in Christ are manifest in 
allthe palace, and in allother places: Phil} 1, 13: 
The presence at Rome of the great Apostle of the 
Gentiles had been the principal cause of the rapid 
propagation of the new faith. 

It was not possible that the Gospel should be dis- 
seminated in the metropolis of paganism without 
exciting vehement opposition. It could not, for the 
reasons already pointed out, engage public opinion 
without inflaming it against itself. Was it not in the 
world asa burning brand which was to set on fire 
the rotten edifice ofa voluptuous and skeptical society ? 
The self-interested devotees of paganism, men like 
Demetrius the silversmith, were even more numer- 
ous at Rome than at Ephesus. The Church had but 
to show itself, to be accursed. Nothing is more easy 
of explanation than this hatred of the Roman people 
to Christianity, and their eagerness to heap upon it 
undeserved reproach. 

But though the first persecution was popular, it is 
none the less chargeable on the crowned tyrant who 
provoked it. Eusebius eloquently says, “ Nothing 
was wanting to Nero but to add to his other titles 
that of being the first emperor who declared war 
against Christianity.” * His object was to divert 


* Wusebius, ἐς ἘΠΙΞΕ. ΠΟ] ui; 25. 


BOOK. II.—FIRST. CENTURY. 229 


from himself the suspicions of the people, who justly 
accused him of having set fire toa great part of the 
city to gratify a fantastic whim. He caused the 
Christians to be seized and tortured to compel them 
to confess a crime of which he himself was guilty. 
He thought that the spectacle of their death would 
compensate for that of the conflagration of the city, 
which had been amusing to none but himself. 
Blending buffoonery with cruelty, he devised the plan 
of clothing the Christians in the skins of wild beasts 
that they might be torn by the dogs. The Emperor 
assumed at this time an air of the greatest conde-. 
scension, -appearing in the circus in a plebeian garb, 
and mixing familiarly with the people. Some Chris- 
tians were crucified ; others, having been rubbed over 
with pitch, were made to serve as torches to light up 
the imperial gardens.* This fearful persecution did 
not extend beyond Rome. It was contrived for the 
amusement and exculpation of the Emperor, and was 
one of the awful caprices of that mad despot, who 
studied crime as a work of art. 

This first persecution produced a deep impression 
through the whole Church. Nero became to the 
Christians the type of Antichrist, and Rome a new 
Babylon, “the mother of harlots, drunken with the 
blood of saints.” We trace this sentiment in all its 
vividness in the representations of the Apocalypse, 
which show us thousands of martyrs around the 
throne of God, crying for vengeance on the great 
whore seated on the seven hills. Nero seemed to the 


2 ¢¢Ty usum nocturni luminis.”” (Tacitus, xiii, 44-) 
: ᾿Ξ ; ee ae 
+ Orosius (vii, 7) asserts, without giving any proof, that Nero’s 
persecution was general. 


ΖΘ EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN (CHURCH, 


Church a sort of personification of the infernal powers 
leagued against her, and she could scarcely believe at 
his death that he had disappeared for ever. If we credit 
the Sibylline oracles, the Church lived in constant 
expectation of seeing him return from the far East to 
enter afresh into bloody warfare with the saints.* 

St. Paul was probably put to death during this 
persecution, at the same time as St. Peter. Accord- 
ing to a doubtful tradition, the latter was crucified 
with his head downward. Clement of Alexandria 
relates that Peter's wife went before him to death, 
and that the Apostle, calling her by name, addressed 
to her these simple and touching words, “Remember 
thou the Lord.’ + Caius, who lived at the commence- 
ment of the third century, says that he saw at Rome 
the tombs of the two Apostles, and we have no reason 
to question his testimony.f Among the mass of 
legends associated with the death of the two Apostles 
is one which, without possessing any historical value, 
has real beauty. We read in the “ Acts of the 
Saints,” that as Peter was trying to leave Rome to 
escape martyrdom, Jesus Christ suddenly appeared 
to him. Peter said, “Lord, whither goest thou?” 
The Lord replied, “I go to Rome, to be crucified.” 
The Apostle understood that the words were to be 
fulfilled in him.§ It was truly Jesus who suffered 
and was crucified in the persons of his disciples in 
that fearful persecution. From this assurance they 
drew all their comfort and strength. 

While paganism was thus waging cruel warfare 
with the Church, Judaism in Palestine was persistent 


**Orac. Sibyliz,” 1%, Lie: + Clement, ‘‘Stromat.,” vii, 736. 
+ Eusebius, 11, 25. § “ Acta Sanctorum.” (Junius, iv, 432.) 


BOOK ΤΙ ΞΘ CENTURY. 231 


likewise in its hatred. James, the brother of the 
Lord, was put to death a short time before Peter and 
Paul. Neither his great popularity nor the unani- 
mous respect he inspired, could avail to save him. 
The Pharisees were his implacable adversaries. He 
was, as we have said, a Jew after God’s heart, and 
therefore raised immeasurably above the Judaism of 
his day ; for it was impossible to embrace heartily 
the old covenant without being led on to the new. 
Piety so sincere and lofty as his was the crying con- 
demnation of Pharisaism—a condemnation so much 
the more direct because conveyed under the very 
form of the old religion. 

According to the statement of Hegesippus,* as the 
influence of James went on increasing day by day, 
the Scribes and Pharisees sought to lead him into a 
denial of his faith before the whole people assembled 
for the Passover feast. ‘“ Persuade the multitude,” 
they said, “not to fall into error with regard to this 
Jesus.| We have all confidence in thee, also the 
people know that thou art a just man, and regardest 
not the persons of men.” They brought him into the 
Temple and questioned him before the multitude. 
“ Tell us, O thou just one,” they said, “tell us what 
is the doctrine of Jesus?” = “ You ask me,” replied 
James, “of Jesus the Son of man; he is in heaven, 
at the right hand of the Almighty, and he will come 


* The account of Hegesippus is to be found in Eusebius, “ Hist. 
Eccl.,” li, 23. We quote it from the text as given by Routh, “ Re- 
liquize Sacrze,”’ i, pp. 209-211. 

t Ileicov ovv σὺ τὸν ὄχλον περὶ Ἰησοῦ μὴ πλανᾶσθαι, (““ Reliquize 
Sacre,” i, p. 210.) 

{Tic ἢ θύρα. Literally, ** What is the door?” that is to say, what 
admits to the sect ? in other words, what is its doctrine ? 


232 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


again in the clouds.” At these words the many 
Christians who were in the crowd uttered a loud ho- 
sanna. The enemies of James, furious at finding 
their crafty design turned against themselves, fell 
upon him, threw him down from the top of the 
Temple steps, and began stoning him. While the 
just man was praying for his murderers with his 
dying breath, a fanatic workman fell on him, and 
with heavy blows from a stick dispatched him.* 
The death of James was followed by a violent perse- 
cution of the Churches in Palestine. The letter 
which was addressed to them at this time by one of 
the disciples of Paul, probably Apollos, and known 
under the name of the Epistle to the Hebrews, was 
designed to strengthen the hearts of the Christians 
in Palestine under the ordeal of a fiery persecution. 
Still clinging, as they did, to Jewish prejudices, local 
and ceremonial, it was to them peculiarly grievous to 
be driven from the Temple, and compelled to relin- 
quish the regular observance of the worship of their 
fathers. It was needful that they should learn from 
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews to distin- 
guish between vanishing types and the eternal realities 
of true religion. Great trials were yet awaiting 
them, for already the imperial armies were marching 
upon the Holy City, to make of its ruins the signal 
monument of the justice of God. 


*Tt cannot be denied that in the detail of Hegesippus’s narrative 
there isa certain theatrical air; but in substance the story seems 
authentic. (Neander, “ Pflanz.,” ii, 181.) The passage in Josephus 
(“‘ Archzelog.,”? xx, 9, 1) has no more impress of authenticity than 
that referring to Jesus Christ. 

+ See Note J, at the end of the volume, on the author of the Epistle 
_to the Ilebrews. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 233 


CHAPTER HI. 


VARIOUS FORMS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE IN THE 
SECOND” PERIOD: OF THE: APOSTOLIC AGE: 


§ I. Fundamental Unity in Diversity. 


HE apostolic age did not arrive at once at the 

full consciousness of the treasures of truth 
committed to it. After its first period, which was, 
like a blessed childhood, all calmness and simplicity, 
it entered upon an era of prolonged conflicts. Did 
these conflicts make, as some have asserted, a schism 
among the Apostles, and did they lead to the forma- 
tion of two hostile Churches—the Judaistic Church, 
under the conduct of Peter and James, and the 
Church freed from the synagogue, under the leader- 
ship of Paul? Can we discover two contradictory 
doctrinal systems, as widely divided the one from the 
other as were subsequently the heresy of the Ebion- 
ites and the orthodox faith? This is the question 
before us for solution. 

We have already several times incidentally ap- 
proached it ; we must now give it full consideration, 
for it is the great theological question of the day. 
Raised by a scholar of the first rank, distinguished 
for his laborious research, and the head of a numer- 
ous school, it presents itself under continually varying 
forms. In order to show its full bearing, it will be 
necessary first to state the view of primitive Christi- 
anity taken by those who differ from ourselves, 


234 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


According to Baur, we have in the apostolic age two 
religious parties in radical opposition within the 
bosom of the Church. On the one hand, the twelve 
Apostles range under their banner all the advocates 
of the perpetual obligation of Judaism ; on the other 
hand, Paul represents the party of emancipation. 
The former are faithful to the true intention of Jesus 
Christ, who preached only a spiritualized Judaism, in 
all points corresponding to Ebionitism. Paul intro- 
duces an entirely new element. The contest is de- 
clared at Jerusalem and at Antioch, and is carried on 
in all the Churches. There is no trace of reconcilia- 
tion between the Apostles during their life, but Paul, 
in his Epistle to the Romans, makes the first advance 
toward conciliation by his strong declaration of love 
for his nation, and his prediction of its glorious future. 
He takes a second step in the same direction when, 
on his last visit to Jerusalem, he joins himself to some 
Jewish Christians, who had taken upon them the vow 
of the Nazarite. But this attempt at reconciliation 
was too premature to lead to any result. The Juda- 
izing party were inveterate in their hatred to the 
great Apostle, who is plainly referred to in the fol- 
lowing century, in the “Clementines,” under the 
name of Simon Magus. Even in this curious docu- 
ment, however, tokens of an approaching reconcilia- 
tion may be discerned. The Judaistic party makes| 
some concessions. In the first place, baptism is sub- 
stituted for circumcision ; then Peter is represented 
as the Apostle of the Gentiles. The reputed Epistle 
of James continues this good work by combating the 
spirit of Judaism in its exaggerated form, no less 
than the Pauline school. This school responds to 


BOOK I.—FIRST CENTURY. ς 235 


these advances. The Epistle to the Hebrews is de- 
signed to harmonize the views of Paul with Judaism, 
interpreted, or rather allegorized, after the Alexan- 
drine method. The Epistles to the Ephesians and 
to the Colossians take the same ground, for they tend 
to show that the death of Jesus Christ has effected a 
reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles, the two 
great sections of mankind. But the document which - 
most evidently bears the trace of these conciliatory 
intentions is that ascribed to Luke, and known as the 
Acts of the Apostles. The writer endeavors to effect 
a sort of retrospective reconciliation between the 
Apostles, and he does it with consummate skill, by 
representing Peter as a satellite of St. Paul, and put- 
ting into his mouth utterances worthy only of the 
Apostle to the Gentiles. The tradition relating to 
Peter’s sojourn at Rome, his connection with Paul, 
and their common martyrdom, belong to the same 
system. The pastoral letters which so forcibly de- 
nounce the dangers of anti-Judaic Gnosticism, as well 
as the letters to which the names of the apostolic 
Fathers are attached, are animated by the same 
spirit. The final result of all these attempts at con- 
ciliation is the composition of the fourth Gospel, 
which resolves all contradictions. It rises into the 
lofty regions of transcendental philosophy, leaving far 
below all past differences. To the writer of that 
Gospel, Jews and Gentiles come into one and the 
same category; they both belong to the kingdom of 
darkness, which is perpetually at war with the king- 
dom of light.* 

Such is the system which, during almost twenty 


* See note K, at the end of the volume. 


236 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


years, has been perpetually under discussion in Ger- 
many. We have already refuted many of its state- 
ments. Never did the criticism of internal evidence 
assume such license. Its proofs are, in truth, drawn 
not from writings of which it is the business of the 
critic to fix the date, but from the preconceived sys- 
tem of the theologian. All that does not coincide 
with that system is prejudged and rejected. A purely 
hypothetical chronology is thus assigned to the mon- 
uments of the apostolic age. The most speculative 
theories are readily admitted as axioms, by which 
other hypotheses may be established. The results 
arrived at by sound criticism with reference to the 
principal writings of the New Testament suffice to 
undermine the very foundation of all this skillful the- 
orizing. Indeed, the very elaborateness of the system 
suggests doubt. How can we suppose such wise 
diplomacy in the first two centuries of the Church ? 
The New Testament, according to the Titibingen 
school, must have been written after the manner of 
the protocols of a congress—a singular explanation, 
surely, of that sublime simplicity which lends to it all 
its charm and power. We have already shown, in giv- 
ing an account of the conference at Jerusalem, and of 
the dispute at Antioch, that the violence on either side 
was not on the part of the Apostles, but was excited 
by fanatical Jewish agitators. ‘The picture we shall 
draw of the heresies of the primitive Church will give . 
still more demonstrative evidence of this important 
fact. Besides, an attentive study of the various forms 
of apostolic doctrine proves that nothing can be more 
false than the theory that they were essentially at 
variance, so that there really existed two systems of 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 297 


Christianity, that of James and Peter, and that of 
Paul. The hypothesis of a decided opposition be- 
tween the Apostles being once set aside, there re- 
mains no reason for supposing any of those retro- 
spective attempts at conciliation by which the his- 
torical facts of the first century are said to have been 
transmuted. We do not deny that the reconciliation 
of the Christians of Jewish origin with those gath- 
ered from among the Gentiles was gradual, but we 
see no ground for postponing it to the second cen- 
tury, in opposition to the testimony of the Acts, and 
that of Paul’s Epistles. 

Reduced to their true proportions, the divergences 
between the sacred writers no longer present them- 
selves as radical or irreconcilable ; on the contrary, 
they form the regular steps of a ladder, which enables 
us to rise gradually to the culminating point of rev- 
elation. Among these types of doctrine, two are 
distinguished by their originality and their broad 
results ; the other tworepresent no less an important 
aspect of the truth, to which it was well that a sort 
of independent prominence should in this way be 
given, because it would not have been definable with 
sufficient clearness in the wide synthesis of doctrine 
presented by St. Paul and St. John. 

The attempt to represent the doctrine of James 
and of Peter, as opposed to that of Paul, really arises 
from a false view of the relation of the Old and New 
Testament. Those who hold that the old economy 
germinally contains the new, see no antagonism be- 
tween the doctrine of James and that of the Apostle 
of the Gentiles. It is too commonly forgotten that 
the Judaism of James had no analogy with Pharisaism. 


23ὃ EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


It was, as we have said, the true ideal Judaism which 
was in harmony with the designs of God—a Judaism, 
consequently, which contained all the principal 
elements of Christianity. Developed and expanded 
by the acceptance of the Gospel, it could not differ _ 
essentially from the doctrine taught by St. Paul. 
James had been brought to a profound comprehen- 
sion of the old covenant ; he had grasped its spirit, 
and the fundamental principle which was to survive 
the theocratic forms in which it had been incarnated, 
as the life of the soul subsists after its bodily tene- 
ment has crumbled into dust. This fundamental 
principle was in its essence the conception of right, 
of justice, of duty, of conscience. James, in trans- 
ferring this to Christianity, only introduced into it a 
permanent element of all true religion. On the 
other hand, Paul understood the Gospel too well not 
to perceive its point of contact with the Old Testa- 
ment, and from the height on which he stood, the 
unity of the divine plan could not escape his notice. 
If, then, we admit the existence in the primitive 
Church of two types of doctrine, we nevertheless 
deny that these constituted two different systems of 
Christianity. The theologians who trace the com~ 
mencement of Gnosticism to Paul, and of Ebionitism 
to James, are guilty of a strange anachronism. To 
us it is clear that both Apostles draw from one com- 
mon source—the teaching and the life of Christ. 
In all there is manifest the influence of one and the 
same Spirit. 

With these reservations, we do not for a moment 
deny the presence of differences among the sacred 
writers ; unity prevails, but diversity exists. Nor do. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 239 


we at all dispute that of the two principal doctrinal 
types of the apostolic era the second is immeasurably 
broader and richer than the first ; but the first has, 
nevertheless, its own peculiar value, and is admirably 
adapted to meet the moral necessities.of every age. 
The diversity thus recognized is perfectly explained by 
the method of the Gospel revelation, which comes to 
us not in the form of a code, but is borne to us, as it 
were, wave upon wave, on the flood of the life of the 
primitive Church. 

Each of the sacred writers preserves his individu- 
ality and speaks his own language. The imperfec- 
tions of detail in each are like his peculiar accent ; 
they testify to his being a free organ of the Spirit of 
God, not a mere passive instrument. They all melt 
into the great central light of truth produced by the 
collective testimony of the Apostles. It is this col- 
lective testimony which alone is authoritative, and 
which sets us free from the rabbinical yoke of isolated 
words under which the Church has been too long in 
bondage. 

We cannot consent, moreover, to regard the writers 
of the New Testament only as the first of theologians. 
They moved in a sphere superior to theology; they 
possessed, as no other generation’ of Christians has 
done, the Spirit of God. Nor did they arrange their 
views in systematic form. “St. Paul,” it has been 
very justly observed, “does not decide questions by 
metaphysical principles, and does not pride himself 
on scientific exactness.” * So true is this, that it is 
impossible to reduce into complete unity the various 
elements of his teaching. Systems, properly so called, 

* Ritschl., “ Alt. Cath. Kirche,” p. 67. 


240 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


were not formed {1.4 later period. Taken as a 
whole, the apostolic doctrine, which, while passing 
through various phases from James to John still 
remained the same in substance, may be regarded as 
the highest and fullest expression of truth. It is the 
rule and the standard of Christian theology, which 
has not to seek out new elements, but to gather up 
and classify those which are supplied, with all the 
inexhaustible abundance of a well of living waters, in 
the canonical books of the New Testament. But it 
is important to trace in the sacred writings the admi- 
rable progression of truth, to observe the unity under- 
lying their variety, and to give to each its own place 
and rank, if we wish to have a living and spiritual 
conception of inspiration instead of a mere mechanical 
notion. 

Three types of doctrine are presented to us in this 
second period of the apostolic age. Each of these is 
characterized by the solution it gives to the question 
of the relation of the two covenants. The old cove- 
nant was based upon two great institutions, the law 
and prophecy. James regards the new covenant as 
the expansion of the law; Peter sees in it, primarily, 
the fulfillment of prophecy. As prophecy was a sort 
of anticipation of Christianity, Peter is by his view 
brought into closer sympathy with Paul, whose 
influence upon him is also very evident. Paul is 
much less concerned with showing the relations of 
the two covenants, than with bringing out their dift 
ferences. The new covenant is to him essentially a 
new fact, the proclamation of pardon, the sovereign 
manifestation of grace--in one word, the Gospel.* 


* Schmid, ‘¢ Biblische Theologie,” ii, go. 


BOOK Ti.=-—FIRST WENTURY. 241 


He is not in opposition either to James or Peter. He 
accepts the fundamental idea of James, but disen- 
gages it from all restrictions. The law, which seemed 
to abolish by grace, receives from that very grace 
a new sanction ; it comes forth from the Gospel as 
from a crucible, purified and spiritualized. Peter’s 
view is also just and true. Judaism is truly 
fulfilled by Christianity, and Paul sets forth with 
much philosophy its preparatory value. If, then, 
the Apostle of the Gentiles was constrained more 
than once to oppose primitive Judzeo-Christianity, 
he nevertheless gave it all legitimate satisfaction in 
the full synthesis of his doctrine. He in this way 
deprived it of any ground for holding itself as a school 
apart. He abolished bycomprehending it. It could 
not henceforward live again except as_ heresy, exter 
nal to the Church. The reconciliation was brought 
about in the most natural manner in the apostolic 
age by the harmonizing of two elements of truth, 
designed thus to combine and complete each other. 


SII. Doctrine of Fames.* 


The main idea running through the whole Epistle 
of James is that of the permanence of the law and of 
moral obligation under the Christian dispensation. 
The law is taken by the sacred writer in its deepest 
sense ; it is to him the expression of absolute good. 
He does not speak, in fact, so much of particular 
precepts of the law, as of the law regarded as an 
indivisible whole, and restored to that unity which is 
inseparable from spirituality. James ii, 11; iv, II. 

*In addition to the works already quoted, see Neander’s “ Practical 


Exposition of the Epistle of James.” 
16 


242 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


The royal law is a law of love,* a perfect law, and a 
law of liberty. James identifies it with the Word 
of God: “Be ye doers of the word.”$ If he does 
not use this expression in the metaphysical sense in 
which St. John employs it, he attaches to it, never- 
theless, a very broad signification. The Word is the 
manifestation of God, or the sum and substance of 
the revelation of himself in religious history. Clearly 
the Word preached by Jesus Christ is pre-eminently 
the Word of God ;§ it is, therefore, the supreme law, 
raised infinitely above the law of Moses. This is no 
mere external commandment; it is a spiritual law, 
to be engrafted into the heart of man.|| It is to be 
observed, that James preserves a complete silence as 
to the ceremonial law; he says nota single word 
about it; he makes no allusion to circumcision, to 
the rites of the Mosaic worship, or to the sacrifices. 
Had he been truly the representative of the school of 
Judaizing Christians, so opposed to the spirit and 
teachings of Paul, he would certainly have protested 
in his letter against the growing freedom of Christian 
practice. We find James, in his Epistle, just as we 
have seen him in the Acts: he does not attach any 
universal obligation to the observance of the Mosaic 
law ; he himself conforms to its rites only because of 
his nationality ; and he insists alone on the great and 


* Ki μέντοι νόμον τελεῖτε βασιλικὸν. James 11, 8. 

+ Νόμον τέλειον, τὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας. James 1, 25. 

t Τίνεσθε δὲ ποιηταὶ λόγον. James i, 22. 

§ “* Which is able to save your souls.”? Jamesi, 21. 

| Tov ἔμφυτον λόγον. James i, 21. M. Reuss erroneously detracts 
from the significance of this expression by regarding it merely as an 
allusion to the parable of the sower. (‘* History of Christian Theology 
in the Apostolic Age,” I, 378.) 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 243 


eternal principle of all morality—conformity to the 
will of God. 

Thus understood, the law, so far from being op- 
posed to faith, is intimately associated with it; James 
never separates them. True to his practical point of 
view, he brings out the indissoluble union of faith 
and works. Deeply convinced that moral obligation 
is‘as real under the Gospel as under the old covenant, 
he deprecates any teaching which, under pretext of 
magnifying salvation by faith alone, should lessen the 
importance of good works. He does not pretend that 


these suffice for man’s justification.* They are pro- 


duced by a living faith, as the ear is produced from 
the living blade. “Show me thy faith without thy 
works,” he exclaims, “and I will show thee my faith 
by my works.” James ii, 18. So far from pleading, 
as he has been accused of doing, the cause of works 
as opposed to faith, he powerfully defends the rights 
of faith. He repudiates faith apart from works, 
because it is then no longer faith ; 22 zs dead in (or 
by) itself.+ When he says that Abraham was justified 
by works, he hastens to add that “fazth wrought 
with hts works.’% It is not true to assert that 
James regarded faith simply as confidence in God— 
the opposite of doubt and wavering—and that in this 
respect he does not advance beyond the conception 
of the Old Testament.§ He argues that faith should 
be characterized by holy love, and should thus be 
distinguished from the faith of devils, which is a light 


* James speaks of righteousness as imputed: ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην. 
James 11, 23. ; 

ἵ Νεκρά ἐστι καθ᾽ ἑαυτήν. James ii, 17. 

1 Ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ. James il, 22. 

§ This is M. Reuss’s idea, i, 378. 


244 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN ‘CHURCH. 


without heat, enlightening without transforming: 
“they believe and tremble.” Jamesii,19. To believe 
without trembling is to rest entirely on the love of 
God ; it is to love him, and such a faith will be mani- 
fested by love. There shall be judgment without 
mercy for him who hath showed no mercy 3 mercy 
rises above judgment.* Hardness toward others is the 
more unpardonable in a Christian, because he has him- 
self been the object of infinite compassion. This 
divine compassion requires that we forgive as we 
have been forgiven, and leaves us without excuse for 
harshness and uncharitableness toward our fellow- 
creatures. The great fact of God’s pardon granted 
to men is clearly stated elsewhere by James. He 
says of the sick over whom is offered the prayer of 
faith, that “if he have committed sins, they shall be 
forgiven him.” Jamesiv,15. If, then, in the eyes of the 
sacred writer, the gravest sin is the want of mercy, 
it follows that the best work is that of showing com- 
passionate love to our neighbor. Love is the center 
of the moral life, as it is the center of the divine life. 
Thus faith and works are closely connected ; they 
flow from the same source. Faith is the acceptance 
of the love of God; works are its realization and 
reflection. We have in this, as in the old economy, 
a law, but it is the law of love proclaimed with new 
power; the two economies meet and form a perfect 
whole. 

In faith divorced from works, James combated in- 
tellectual dogmatism, the opus operatum of doctrine, 
as Paul had combated the opus opferatum of legal 
formalism. Both are the champions of true religion, 


* Κατακαυχᾶται ἔλεος κρίσεως. James 1], 13. 


BOOK. Ti.>—PIRST, CENTURY: 245 


which has for its basis the royal law of love. We 
find in James the doctrine of grace very clearly taught. 
“Every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from 
above, and cometh down from the father of lights.” 
“ Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.” 
Jamesi, 17,18. The Spirit of God dwelleth in Chris- 
tians ;* it is he who gives them grace to walk in the 
way of holiness. We have here a mystical element 
introduced, which raises us far above mere Judzo- 
Christianity. 

The great argument urged to prove an irreconcila- 
ble difference between the Epistle of James and the 
form of doctrine presented by Paul, is the entire silence 
of the former on all the historical facts of the Gospel. 
He says nothing of the death and resurrection of the 
Saviour or of his miracles. But if these facts are 
nowhere distinctly mentioned, they are every-where 
implied ; the views—so clear, so beautiful—of God's 
forgiveness and mercy expressed by James would be 
unmeaning without them. The Gospel history silently 
but surely underlies the whole epistle. Is it not in 
view of the cross, where the deepest distress has 
issued in the most glorious triumph, that James pens 
the noble words with which his Jetter opens, “ My 
brethren, count it all joy, when ye fall into divers 
temptations?” James i, 1. Is not his enlarged and 
spiritualized conception of the law derived from the 
words of the Master? With James, as with St. Paul, 
the object of faith is Jesus Christ, whom, in recogni- 
tion of his majesty, he calls “the Lord of glory.’ + 
The duty of the Christian’is, according to him, to 


*T6 Πνεῦμα, 6 κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν. James iv, 5. 
{ Τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν τῆς δύξης. James i, 1. 


246 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


await the “second coming of the Lord.” * With such 
declarations as these before us, it 1s impossible to 
regard James as an adversary of St. Paul. Doubt- 
less the doctrine of James, as compared with that of 
the great Apostle, is very rudimentary. There is a 
vast distance between the vigorous dialectics of the 
author of the Epistle to the Romans, and the senten- 
tious language of the Epistle of James, in which the 
thread of the argument is constantly broken, or is 
concealed under the somewhat monotonous stateli- 
ness of the oriental style. But the main thought of 
the writer comes out the more prominently, because 
it is not incorporated in a broad dogmatic system. 
The earnest moral tone of this Epistle, with its 
graphic and striking images, commends it as a 
healthful tonic to the Christian conscience. 

The sacred writer designed his letter for Churches 
of which he knew the internal condition. It has 
been wrongly asserted that he had in view only a 
Judaized and Pharisaic form of Christianity, altogether 
alien to Pauline doctrine.t We believe that it was 
also his intention to oppose certain exaggerations of 
the teaching of Paul, which had gained currency in° 
the countries bordering on Palestine. A sapless and 
fruitless Christianity, in which doctrinal controversies 
took the place of good works, threatened to over- 
spread the Churches in which the opposing parties 
had come into collision. This is the danger which 
James is anxious to avert. He condemns these ab- 
errations by the general principle set forth in his 


*"Ew¢ τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ Κυρίου. James v, 7. 
+ Neander’s Introduction to his ““ Practical Exposition of the 
Fpistle of James.” 


ΒΘΟΘΙΞ Ὶ - ΕἸ CENTURY. 247 


epistle ; and his arguments go to maintain, not (as 
has been pretended) the severe asceticism of some 
writers of the Old Testament, but the permanence 
of moral obligation under the two economies. It was 
needful to remind those who were Christians in word 
only, that they would have to appear before the just 
Judge. James brought into full relief the severe side 
of Christianity, without detracting at all from the 
divine mercy. On the contrary, he reads in that 
mercy itself a law not less stringent than the law of 
Moses, and accompanied with the same solemn sanc- 
tion. Thus closely did he connect the Gospel with 
the Old Testament, and thus admirably fulfill, not 
for his contemporaries only, but for all generations, 
his special mission as the man of a transition period. 


§ III. Doctrinal Type of Peter. The First. Two 
Gospels. 


While James regards the Gospel as the consecra- 
tion of the law in an enlarged and spiritualized form, 
it specially commends itself to Peter as the fulfill- 
ment of prophecy. He thus comes closer to the 
heart of revelation, inasmuch as the prophecy of the 
Old Testament had much more direct reference than 
the law to Messiah and his work. Thus the person 
of Jesus Christ occupies a far larger place in the 
Epistle of Peter than in that of James. The position 
taken up by the Apostle is very clearly described in 
the first chapter of his epistle. Of this “salvation,” 
he says, “the prophets inquired and searched dili- 
gently, who prophesied of the grace that. should 
come unto you: searching what, or what manner of 
time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did sig- 


248 EARLY YEAKS OF THE: CHRISTIAN: CHURCH. 


nify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of 
Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom 
it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto 
us they did minister the things which are now re- 
ported unto you by them that have preached the 
Gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down 
from heaven.” 1 Peter 1, 10-12. If we collate these 
words with the first sermons of Peter, we shall find 
they take up the habitual theme of his preaching at 
Jerusalem ; and if we remember further, that we are 
to seek the special doctrinal characteristic of the 
various sacred writers in the solution given by them 
to the question of the relation of the vwo covenants, 
we shall feel that we cannot attach too much impor- 
tance to this passage of the Epistle of Peter. He af- 
firms most explicitly the unity of the old and new 
covenants. The Spirit of Christ which lives in the 
Apostles was also the animating Spirit of the Proph- 
ets, who were the true forerunners of the Evangelists, 
since they foretold both the sufferings and the glory 
of Messiah. 1 Peteri, 11. True religion rises before 
his eyes like a vast and splendid temple—prophecy 
its foundation, the Gospel its top-stone. Supremely 
desirous to show the close bond which unites the 
two eras of revelation, he does not feel called upon 
to give at the same time prominence to the differ- 
ences between them ; in his letter we have, therefore, 
no trace of anti-Judaizing polemics. On the other 
hand, he moves in a sphere raised far above a narrow 
Judzeo-Christianity. The religion of Christ appears 
to him a full and glorious development of Judaism. 
For the exclusive choice of one nation there has been 
substituted the election of all the redeemed ; -national 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. + 249 


election has given place to moral election, which is 
not confined to the limits of Judzea, but extends to 
those who once were not the people of God. 1 Peter 
11, 9, 10. To the special priesthood has succeeded the 
universal and royal priesthood of all who are Christ's. 
I Peter ii, 5-7. The hope of the Church reaches far 
beyond the horizon of the theocracy. It is fixed no 
longer on an earthly inheritance, like the land of 
Canaan, it is changed into the lively hope of “an in- 
heritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth 
not away, reserved in heaven.” 1 Peteri, 4. If the 
Apostle says nothing of the law, and of the prepara- 
tory part assigned to it, it cannot be justly argued 
that he is designedly silent, fearing to reawaken 
bitter disputations in the divided Churches.* He is 
silent on this point, simply because his great purpose 
is to bring out the harmonious relations of the two 
covenants rather than the differences between them. 

Peter is not, like James, satisfied with simple allu- 
sions to the person of Jesus Christ; he has not, 
however, the same broad and full conception as St. 
Paul of his nature and work. He does not go back 
beyond the ages to adore the eternal Son, in the 
bosom of the Father or ever the world was ; though 
some divines have discerned an allusion to his_pre- 
existence in one expression in the first chapter.t He 
does not speak of Christ’s part in creation. He does 
not go into any analysis of the work of redemption. 

* Reuss, ii, 586. 

+ To ἐν αὐτοῖς Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. 1 Peteri, 11. It is a matter of 
question whether the Apostle here intends to speak of the agreement 
of the prophetic spirit with the Spirit of Christ, or of the sending 
forth of the Divine Spirit under the old covenant by the eternal 
Word. (See Schmid, ‘ Biblisch. Theol.,” 11, 184.) 


2 ΕΘ EARLY YEARS OF ΓΗΒ ΕΠΕΙΞΕΤΑΝ CHURCH. 


He simply sets forth the fact without endeavoring to 
explain its mystery. There can be no ground for 
saying that he rejects the mystical interpretation 
given by Paul; he neither denies nor accepts it; he 
passes it by. His simple affirmation is, that Christ 
“bore our sins in his own body on the tree, and that 
By nis stripes. we are healed:;)-12 Peter i,u244) προ τ: 
In his writings, however, we find, though in a less 
dialectic and more popular form, all the elements of 
the doctrine of Paul with reference to the Lord Jesus 
Christ. Peter speaks of him as invested with divine 
honors.* It is by his precious blood that Christians 
are redeemed; the blood “as of a lamb without 
blemish, and without spot.” 1 Peter 1, 19. His res- 
urrection was to them a being begotten again from 
te Mctead 1 Peter 4,23 Of chim tand ite chim. areal 
things in the present, the past, the future. 1 Peter i, 
ii, iv; I ;4,4.) Even in the dark abode of ‘the-dead 
the effects of his power and love have been felt. 
He went and preached unto the spirits in prison in 
the interval between his death and his resurrection.t 
The Apostle thus gives us a wonderful glimpse of a 
mysterious aspect of the work of redemption. Jesus 
Christ is set forth as the supreme object of faith. 
Peter does not enlarge upon the nature of faith any 


* 'Inood Χριστοῦ, © ἐστιν ἡ δόξα Kai TO κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν 
αἰώνων. 1 Peter iv, 11. “Τὸ whom (Jesus Christ) be praise and do- 
minion for ever and ever.” 

+ Τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασι πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν. τ Peter iil, 19, 20. 
We find it impossible to give any other meaning to this passage. It 
is easy to see the broad distinction between this apostolic doctrine 
and the idea of purgatory. Here there is no suggestion of a purifi- 
cation by suffering, but simply of a preaching of redemption to those 
who had never heard of Christ. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 251 


more than upon the nature of redemption. Here 
also he affirms the fact without explaining it ; but the 
exalted manner in which he sets before Christians 
the example ot ‘the ’Saviour, (1-Peter aij. 21  ν}:1)) 
and beseeches them to bear his likeness, and sanctify 
him in their hearts, (1 Peter iii, 15,) shows that he 
did not intend by faith simply confidence in God, but 
that he comprehended it in its deepest sense—that 
of a real union with the Saviour. Speaking to Chris- 
tians under persecution, and exposed to great trials, 
he constantly brings them into the presence of the 
cross of Christ; and if he does not expressly tell 
them, as does the author of the Epistle to the Co- 
lossians, to fill up the sufferings of Christ, his whole 
epistle breathes the same spirit. The sublime con- 
clusion of the fourth chapter gives very convincing 
proof of this. We find, lastly, in Peter’s writings, 
the same sentiments so tenaciously held by Paul as 
to the election and foreknowledge of God. 1 Peter i, 2; 
li, 9. Such a conception is closely connected with 
his general view of God’s workings. It was this 
divine foreknowledge which conceived in its unity 
the plan of salvation, and determined its successive 
developments from the earliest prophecies of the old 
covenant to its full consummation. 

We have more than once observed traces of the 
influence of Paul in the form of Peter’s doctrinal 
teaching. No fact of the apostolic age appears to us 
more easy of explanation than the influence exercised 
by the great Apostle of the Gentiles. But if Peter 
reproduces some traits of Paul’s doctrine he never sur- 
renders his own individuality. There must be sin- 
gular obtuseness of spiritual perception in those who 


252 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


see in his beautiful epistle only a copy, or a mosaic 
of Paul’s teaching. The Spirit of God has set his 
seal on almost every word of this letter, so rich in 
consolation, and so well adapted to the Church 
militant in the hour of most sharp and deadly 
conilict. 

Having thus defined the doctrinal type of James 
and of Peter, we may at once recognize their impress 
in our first two Gospels. It is well known that Mark 
gives a summary of the preaching of Peter; this 
Gospel, so brief and graphic, presents us with the 
most vivid picture of the life of Christ. Written for 
the Church at Rome, it is marvelously adapted, in 
its condensed force and dramatic style, to the prac- 
tical genius of the Latin race: Festznat ad res. It 
also corresponds very exactly to what we know of 
the doctrine of Peter. That Apostle, in his great de- 
sire to show that Christianity was the fulfillment of 
prophecy, was led to dwell mainly upon the facts of 
the Gospel history ; he gave comparatively little at- 
tention to its speculative side. It was, therefore, 
natural that the Gospel written under his immediate 
influence should bear markedly and exclusively an 
historic character. 

The Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Pal- 
estine and in the Hebrew language, for the Jewish 
‘converts, reminds us of the doctrine both of James 
and of Peter. The new religion is there presented 
as a law more perfect than that given from Sinai. 
The Sermon on the Mount is the principal source 
from which James draws his conceptions of the per- 
manence of moral obligation. On the other hand, 
Matthew seeks to establish, with scrupulous care, 


BOOK II.—FIRST: CENTURY. 253. 


the relation of the Gospel history with ancient 
prophecy. He does not lose a single opportunity of 
giving prominence to this harmony, and he discerns 
it in the most minute details no less than in great 
and important facts. This is his one all-pervading 
thought, and it gives him a strong and perfectly dis- 
tinct individuality. 

As a whole, the first two Gospels are no more 
favorable to Judzeo-Christianity than are the epistles 
of James and of Peter. The high dignity of Messiah 
is recognized in the most explicit manner. His 
divinity is clearly asserted in such declarations as 
these: “ All things are delivered unto me of my Fa- 
ther ; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father ; 
neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, 
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” * 
Jesus Christ himself is represented as the direct ob- 
ject of faith. Matt. x, 32, 37. The right of forgiving 
sins, which belongs to God only, is sovereignly exer- 
cised by him, as recorded by the first two Evangelists. 
Matt. ix, 6. What subordinate meaning can be at- 
tached to such words as these: “Lo, 1 am with you 
alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matt. xxviii, 
20. All the prophetic utterances concerning the 
glorious return of Christ are full of a declaration of 
his divinity ; nor can these be justly regarded as in 
harmony only with the spirit of Judzeo-Christianity, 
since they occupy, as we shall see, a large place in 
the doctrine of Paul.t The pretended opposition be- 
tween the writings of the early Apostles and those 
of Paul vanishes before a close examination. The 
consideration, upon which we shall now enter, of the 

* Matt, xif272, Comp. Matt. iii, 17 5, xiii, 41. + Reuss, ii, 58. 


254 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


doctrine of the great Apostle, will yet more com- 
pletely show the fallacy of this theory. 


SIV. Doctrine of St. Paul.* 


Never did the connection between the thought and 
the life, the heart and the head, appear more mani- 
festly than in the case of St. Paul. He is a remarka- 
ble illustration of the well-known saying, Pectus est 
guod facit theologum ; it is the heart which makes 
the theologian. His theology sprang all living from 
his heart ; it glowed with the fire that consumed him. 
His own moral life struggled for expression in his 
doctrine ; and to give utterance to both at once, Paul 
created a marvelous language, rough and incorrect, 
but full of resource and invention, following his rapid 
leaps of thought, and bending to his sudden and 
sharp transitions. His ideas come in such rich 
abundance that they cannot wait for orderly expres- 
sion ; they throng upon each other, and intermingle 
in seeming confusion; but the confusion is seeming 
only, for through it all a powerful argument steadily 
sustains the mastery. The tongue of Paul is, indeed, 
a tongue of fire. 

The vocation of the Apostle of the Gentiles was 
to effect the final emancipation of the Church from 
the Synagogue; he did not, therefore, feel himself 
bound to use the same caution as Peter and James, 
in the transition from Judaism into Christianity. He 

* Besides the works on Biblical theology already mentioned, we 
direct attention to the monograph of Usteri, entitled ‘* Entwicklung 
des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffs.”” The author may be accused of 
having made St. Paul far too much resemble Schleiermacher. His 


great merit is that of having made the first attempt to present a com- 
plete view of Paul’s doctrine. 


BOOK Ὑ ΞΞ ΤΕ CENTURY. 255 


did not unloose with a timid hand the knot of this 
question ; he boldly cut it. While he taught substan- 
tially the same Gospel as St. James and St. Peter, 
he did not set himself, as they did, to exhibit exclu- 
sively the positive side of the new religion ; he repu- 
diated emphatically every thing that was alien to it. 
In great religious reforms the simple affirmation of 
truth is not enough ; there must be the corresponding 
formal negation of error, so that no misconception 
may be possible. Paul, therefore, laid the ax to the 
root of the tree which was to fall—to the root of that 
narrow and impotent legalism, which had overspread 
the Church with its deadly shadow. We shall see, 
however, at the same time, that while Paul used ar- 
gument as a sharp and unsparing weapon, he used it 
also as the plowshare, which cleaves the earth only 
to make it fruitful. Every one of his negations led 
to a richer affirmation ; and as his polemics took a 
wider field, his theology became more and more 
enriched with new and important truths, which, under 
divine inspiration, he drew from the inexhaustible 
treasury of the teaching of Christ. This was the 
sole and sufficient source of all Paul’s doctrine ; as a 
whole and in all its parts, that doctrine corresponds 
perfectly to the teaching of the Master, of which it 
was the logical deduction and development. 

The theology of Paul has been repeatedly impov- 
erished by the spirit of system, which has sought in it 
only the justification of its own dogmatic preferences. 
It has not been comprehended in its fullness in 
any of the creeds of the past. Between these formal 
creeds and the doctrine of Paul, there is as great a 
distance as between the testimony of the Apostles, 


256 EARLY YEARS.OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


and the always uncertain researches of human sci- 
ence. The Pauline doctrine is characterized by the 
marked predominance of the moral element. This is 
never lowered as in Pelagianism, which, in attempting 
to fit its morality to the measure of man, dwarfs it 
miserably, and takes away all its ideal character. 
But neither, on the other hand, does the doctrine of 
Paul merge the human in the divine as does Augus- 
tinism. It maintains the balance between grace and 
freedom ; it boldly asserts both the one.and the other, 
and thus guards against any exclusive tendency. 
The harmonious fusion of the moral and the religious 
element is in our view the distinctive feature of this 
theology, which thus fulfills, while it abolishes, the old 
covenant. Accepting the central idea of James—the 
permanence of moral obligation on the conscience 
under the new covenant—St. Paul sanctifies and 
vivifies it by his doctrine of justification by faith. 
Thus all the supposed contradictions disappear. 
There is no better method of demonstrating the fun- 
damental agreement between St. Paul and St. James, 
than a just appreciation of the essentially moral 
character of Paul’s religious teaching. 

The first principle in the doctrine of Paul is that of 
righteousness. Righteousness is the expression of 
the true relations which ought to subsist between the 
creature and the Creator. “Know ye not that the 
unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?” 
I Cor. vi, 9. The new covenant has not abrogated 
this essential principle of all religion and morality. 
On the contrary, it has given it emphatic sanction ; 
it has inaugurated the reign of true righteousness.* 


*Nuvi δὲ χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ πεφανέρωται. Rom. iii, 21. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 257 


The moral principle is, therefore, the basis of both 
covenants. Every thing turns, every thing rests, upon 
it. Righteousness is not taken by Paul in an exter- 
nal and legal sense, as if it consisted simply in the 
fulfillment of certain precepts. It is founded on a 
universal law, graven in the heart of man by the 
hand of God himself. This law is written deep in the 
conscience, and is therefore found in the Gentile no 
less than in the Jew.* Righteousness, thus regarded, 
is not only the conformity of our will to certain com- 
mands of God; it consists in the conformity of our 
being to the being of God. Man is called to become 
an zwuttator of God.~ This is the moral ideal, the 
epitome of duty in which all is comprehended. 
Starting from this deep conception of righteous- 
ness, St. Paul seeks its realization in religious history. 
He recognizes, first of all, the fact that humanity is 
in an abnormal condition, and that it has been plunged 
by an act of rebellion into sin and condemnation. 
He then endeavors to show in what way the fallen 
race is reinstated in righteousness ; he is thus led to 
mark clearly the difference between the old covenant 
and the new, while he clearly indicates the prepara- 
tory value of the former. The fall, and the state of 
man since the first transgression—the Mosaic law and 
its design in Providence—redemption and its results— 
all these are successive chapters of the theology of 


* «¢ They show the work of the law written in their hearts.” Οἵτινες 
ἐνδείκνυνται TO ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὑτῶν. Rom. 
τ. 12. 1: 

+TivecOe οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ephes. v, 1. This precept is 
addressed to Christians, but it is evident that the moral ideal thus set 
before them is the moral ideal in itself. 


17 


258 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Paul. We shall find him perpetually making all the 
various branches of his doctrine converge to the 
great idea of righteousness as the center and pivot of 
the whole. 

We are all familiar with Paul’s forcible description 
of the general corruption of mankind. ‘Taking as his 
text those words in the Psalms, “There is none right- 
eous, no, not one,” he draws with inimitable power 
the picture of the degradation of the fallen race.* 
In order to render it yet more striking, he borrows 
his colors from the corrupt state of society around 
him. The first portion of his Epistle to the Romans 
is devoted to an unsparing demonstration of the 
fallen state of humanity. On the one hand the Apos- 
tle shows us the pagan world, abandoned to impure 
and hateful lusts, dishonoring man by its abominations 
after having attempted to dishonor God by its idola- 
tries, changing the truth of God into a lie; (Rom. 1, 
23-32 ;) on the other hand he attacks the unbelieving 
Jew, and holding over his head as a sword that very 
law in which he glories, he says, “ Thou that makest 
thy boast of the law, by breaking the law dishonor- 
est thou God?” Rom. ii, 23. After this. clear and. 
concise declaration of the sins of the Jewish and 
Gentile world, Paul may fairly draw his conclusion as 
to the universality of sin. 

This melancholy fact has its own natural and in- 
evitable consequences, ἘΠ is:clear that 11 man’ had 
adhered to righteousness—that eternal and divine 
righteousness, which ought to regulate his relations 
with God—he would have found that happiness 


* OVK ἔστι δίκαιος οὐδὲ εἷς. Rom. iii, το. 
ἱ Πάντες γὰρ ἥμαρτον. Rom. iii, 23. 


'ΒΟΟΚ fh) fot ΘΟ Ν Π ᾽ν: 259 


which is the fruit of righteousness. The perfect 
observance of the law of God results in a happy life. 
If all the works of man had been good—that is to 
say, if the whole of his moral life had been in con- 
formity with the will of God—he would have been 
justified by his works. Righteousness would have 
been realized, and the harmony between the Creator 
and the creature maintained. Paul rejects justifica- 
tion by works, because the conditions of such justifi- 
cation have never been really fulfilled, and our 
boasted good works are still defiled by sin.* 

The violation of the law of God brought condem- 
nation on all the children of men. They are all 
under the wrath of God ; (Rom. ii, 5 ;) they have all’ 
come short of the glory of God.f All the conse- 
quences of sin are summed up in one word—death. 
This word undoubtedly points, in its primary signifi- 
cance, to the separation of the body and soul, and the 
destruction of the physical life; but it has a less 
restricted sense. It may be understood also of sepa- 
ration from God, and of the evils consequent on 
that separation ; (1 Cor. xv, 21 ;) of the ruin wrought 
by sin in our nature—Man is “dead in trespasses and 
sins.” 

Are we to take this declaration of St. Paul in its 
strictest sense? Did he intend to say that every 
spark of the divine life was quenched in us by-the 
fall? Did he teach the absolute corruption of human 

* Paul, in his theory of justification by faith, always assumes our 
sinful condition. It is in our actual state of sin that we have need of 
pardon. 

Τ Ὑστεροῦνται τῆς δόξης τοῦ Θεοῦ. Rom. iii, 23. 

f Ὑμᾶς ὄντας νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασι καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις. 
Iphesians ii, 1. 


260 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


nature? We think not. Undoubtedly, as far as 
salvation is concerned, these words are to be taken in 
their fullest significance. Fallen man has no more 
power to save himself than a dead man to raise him- 
self to life. The Apostle admits, however, that man ° 
still retains some traces of his original nature. He 
says, “ When the Gentiles, which have not the law, 
do by nature the things contained in the law, these, 
having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” 
They “show the work of the law written in their 
hearts.”.*. In his discourseiat Athens. he speaksvof 
the consciousness of the divine life as present in the 
unconverted man. “For we are also,’ he says, “his 
offspring.” | The same conclusion may be drawn 
from the graphic representation given by the Apostle 
of the conflict which takes place in the heart before 
conversion—that painful struggle between the flesh 
and the spirit, which reveals the existence of the 
divine principle in powerful reaction against sin. Rom. 
vil, 14-24. But up to the moment when the grace 
of God gives deliverance the conflict always ends 
in the defeat of the higher principle. The natural 
man is the slave of sin, the slave of the law in the 
members—in one word, the slave of the flesh. Rom. 
Wisi 2a: 

This does not imply that the body is the seat and 
principle of evil. By such a doctrine Paul would 
have sanctioned by anticipation Manichzism and all 
the dualistic theories of the ancient world. Instead 
of opposing, as he did, oriental asceticism, he would 

*"Orav yap ἔθνη τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα φύσει τὰ τοῦ νόμου TOL, . 
ἑαυτοῖς εἰσι νόμος. Rom. ii, 14. 


t Tod γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν. Acts xvii, 28. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 261 


have favored and commended it. Col. i, 20-23 ; 
1 Tim. iv, 8; Rom. xiv, 6. His conception of right- 
eousness is too broad and deep to permit him to 
identify the principle of evil with the corporeal prin- 
ciple. He is, further, careful to guard against any 
misconception by numbering among the works of the 
flesh such sins as hatred, variance, envyings, which 
clearly have no connection with sensuality. Gal. v, 
Io-21; I Cor. ui, 3. The opposition between the 
flesh and the Spirit is not so much between the mate- 
rial and the spiritual part of the nature of man, as 
between the lower or earthly and the higher or heav- 
enly element in the soul.* The lower or earthly ele- 
ment predominates in the unconverted man, though 
even in him may be found some vestiges of the 
higher life. Rom. vii, 17. This predominance of the 
lower element causes the gravest perturbations in our 
nature, and leads almost of necessity to the bondage 
of the soul to the body. This is the most striking 
and universal evidence of the fall, the commonest 
manifestation of sin. The Apostle is, therefore, justi- 
fied in characterizing it by that which may be re- 
garded as its most palpable feature, and in calling 
the law of sin the law in our members.’+ Evil is not 
an accidental and isolated fact in our life; it has be- 
come a tendency, an inclination, a law. 

We shall be yet more convinced that it is impos- 
sible to accuse Paul of dualism if we-consider the 
solution which he gives of the tremendous question 
of the origin of evil. It was, according to him, the 


* This is the distinction between the ψύχη and the πνεῦμα. 1 Cor. 


1 τς. BS; 
{ Ἕτερον νόμον ἐν τοῖς μέλεσί μου. Rom. vii, 23. 


262 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


rebellion of the first man which introduced evil into 
the world; in other words, the principle of evil must 
be sought not in the body but in the will. Sinisa 
free act ; it in no way bears the character of a phys- 
ical necessity. It is the breaking of the normal bond 
between the creature andthe ποτε δ ον St. Paul 
gives no explanation of the mode of the transmission 
of sin; he contents himself with pointing out how 
the powers of evil have been let loose upon mankind. 
It would be impossible to derive from his words a 
complete theory of original sin ; he does no more than 
affirm the universality of the condemnation, and the 
universality of the sin introduced into the world by 
the first transgression.} 

After having thus demonstrated that the whole 
race of Adam is exposed to the wrath of God on ac- 
count of his unfulfilled law, the Apostle draws in 
broad outline the history of the work of salvation. 
He has set aside all the claims of Judaism to occupy 
a place apart in the midst of the general condemna- 
tion.. By exploding all the pretensions of human 
pride, and destroying all its false titles to the favor of 
God, he has cleared the ground; and he may now 
triumphantly establish the doctrine of free salvation, 
which is, in his view, the very essence of Christianity. 


* The first sin is a transgression: παραβάοις, a disobedience ; there- 
fore a moral fact. 

+ The famous passage, (Rom. v, 12-15,) ἐφ᾽ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον, was 
long translated, under the influence of Augustinism, 7 wom (Adam) 
all have sinned. ‘This interpretation, which does violence to the 
grammar, isnow almost universally abandoned. The true sense is this: 
Death has passed upon all men, because all have sinned. St. Paul 
adds, that the transgression of Adam brought that of his descendants ; 
but he is content with the general statement of the fact. He does not 
say that the sin of Adam was imputed before it had been committed. 


BOOK IJ.—FIRST CENTURY. 263 


‘A race so deeply fallen can only be raised again by 
free grace. From before the creation of the world 
God conceived the plan of salvation ;* from all eter- 
nity it was determined in the counsels of his mercy. 
This is the secret, the mystery of his gracious will.t 
The first cause of salvation is, then, the sovereign 
freedom of God. It rests upon an act of his good 
pleasure ; its principle is the everlasting love of the 
Father, which embraces not one peculiar people, but 
the whole of humanity, the Gentile nations no less 
than the Jews. This glorious mystery was, however, 
only revealed in the last times.f 

The creation of the world was the first manifesta- 
tion of the eternal and infinite love. It was, in truth, 
by the Son of God, who is the highest personification 
of love, that all things both in heaven and earth were 
created. “By him and for him were all things.’’§ 
Redemption is only the restoration of the primitive 
design of creation, the reparation of the confusion 
wrought by sin, the bringing in again of true right- 
eousness. All that was comprehended in the plan 
of creation found a place afresh in the plan of re- 
demption. It was the good pleasure of the Father to 
reconcile all things through him, by whom and for 
whom all had been created. || 

This eternal decree of divine love has been taken 
by many distinguished theologians in a sense so nar- 

* Πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. Eph. i, 4. 

+ Τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος αὑτοῦ κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὑτοῦ. Eph. 
1, 90. 

ἘΝ τῷ μυστηρίῳ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, . .. εἶναι τὰ ἔθνη συγκληρονόμα. 
Eph. iii, 4, 6. 

§ Τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται. Col. i, 16. 

|| Av’ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὑτὸν. Col. i, 20. 


264 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


row as to exclude altogether the moral principle ; 
they have only escaped pantheism by a happy incon- 
sistency, occasioned by their deep piety and their 
sincere desire to guard the rights of God against the 
assumptions of human pride. We hold, however, 
that their system finds no sanction in the theology of 
Paul. There isa vast difference between Augustinian 
predestination and the predestination spoken of by 
St. Paul. According to Augustine, God in his sov- 
ereignty has decreed the salvation of a small fraction 
of mankind. Calvin adds, that on the same ground 
he has decreed the eternal perdition of the rest of the 
race. We find nothing corresponding to this in the 
writings of Paul. According to him, salvation pro- 
ceeds from a decree of sovereign love; it is thus a 
matter of predestination—that is, it has, as its first 
cause, the all-powerful will of God. It is a generous 
and free gift. Divine love precedes, therefore, any 
act of ours; it does not originate in any human merit ; 
it has no other spring than the infinite compassion 
of God. God loved man, not because of his actual 
excellence or possible merits, but because he was 
pleased thus to love him. It is in this sense that man 
is predestinated- to happiness. Thus the salvation 
comes “neither of him that willeth, nor of him that 
runneth.” Rom.ix, 16. It is neither arecompense nor 
an exchange, for then its whole order and principle 
would be inverted ; it would proceed from the crea- 
ture and not from the Creator. It is a gift of free 
grace ; but it is none the less in harmony with the 
laws of divine righteousness ; they even receive in 
its realization a new and more sacred seal. 

St. Paul does not regard salvation simply in an 


BOOK IJ.—FIRST CENTURY. 265 


abstract and general manner ; he insists on its indi- 
vidual application. The salvation of every man, as 
of the race, has its origin in the eternal love of God, 
and not in human merit. It is only realized, however, 
under certain conditions inseparable from the con- 
ception of righteousness, which is always kept invio- 
late in the theology of the Apostle. The eye of God 
—to which all futurity is open, as are the secrets of 
all hearts, and with whom there is no time—sees 
from all eternity the unfolding and complete develop- 
ment of every individual life. Election is nothing 
else than this eternal foreknowledge of God, embrac- 
ing the destiny of every man, and discerning the part 
which every man will take with reference to salva- 
tion ; or, to be more exact, it is the application of the 
decree of infinite love to every soul which has not 
obstinately rejected mercy. The initiative in the 
reconciliation ever belongs to God ; it always flows 
from his eternal purpose of mercy, and it is impossi- 
ble to find a shadow of merit in the creature, whose 
part it is simply to suffer himself to be saved. The 
very word election sets aside the- idea of any thing 
arbitrary in the salvation of the individual, for it im- 
plies a choice, and an intelligent choice. 

Against this interpretation of the idea of the Apos- 
tle, the famous ninth chapter of the Epistle to the 
Romans is adduced ; but it is a violation of all the 
rules of sound exegesis to isolate one portion of 
Scripture and to endeavor to explain the whole Bible 
by one page, instead of explaining that page by all 
the rest. Let us observe, in the first place, that in 
that chapter the Apostle is speaking not of the elec- 
tion of individuals but of nations. His design is to 


266 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


oppose the Jewish notion that a national election 
creates for a people an inalienable and permanent 
claim to salvation ; and he appeals, in controversion 
of this prejudice, to the free grace of God. Rom. ix, 11. 
The proposition thus sustained by the Apostle is the 
great principle of Christianity. At the close of the 
chapter, instead of entering into a metaphysical dis- 
cussion, he silences all objections by invoking the 
absolute sovereignty of God: “O man, who art thou 
that repliest against God?” He crushes his im- 
agined opponent by thus directly bringing him into 
the presence of that supreme power on which man is 
absolutely dependent. His position is unassailable 
even on the limited ground thus voluntarily assumed 
by him ; but is there no broader ground in his the- 
ology? Has he not shown in the passage already 
quoted that this supreme power is at the same time 
supreme love? Has he not declared that God was 
pleased to reconcile all things to himself by Jesus 
Christ ? Why should the one statement be sacri- 
ficed to the other? Why should not the one explain 
and complete the other? In the ninth chapter of 
the Romans, Paul follows the legitimate method em- 
ployed in all discussions ; he says to his adversaries, , 
“Even admitting that God is only sovereign power, 
your mouth is still shut.” But he has told us else- 
where what is this sovereign power, and violence is 
done to his doctrine if it is accepted only in part. 
Unquestionably man, regarded as a frail creature and 
compared with the omnipotent Creator, is but as the 
earthen vessel before the potter who has fashioned it. 
But Paul has told us what precious treasure is con- 
tained in that earthen vessel; he has shown us the 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 267 


divine spark within. This vessel of clay is a being 
created in the image of God, endowed with liberty, 
called to holiness. Therefore, to save that which he 
has so made, God shakes the heavens and the earth. 
Those who find the whole Gospel in some impas- 
sioned turn in the dialectics of St. Paul, or in some 
bold but incomplete image, misconceive the moral 
beauty and the depth of his doctrine; they overturn 
all the fundamental ideas of conscience, and deprive 
Christianity of its true basis and point of contact in 
ourselves. The best means of refuting any such 
partial notions is to retrace with the Apostle the suc- 
cessive developments of God’s plan in the world. 
Such a careful examination will give emphatic evi- 
dence that the clay out of which was wrought this 
frail vessel called man was not simply borrowed from 
the lower world and kept in subjection to the inflex- 
ible laws of nature. 

The work of restoration begins immediately after 
the fall. It is divided into two great periods. The 
first, which extends to the coming of Christ, is the 
time of God’s patience. The world is under sentence 
of condemnation ; but judgment is not fully execu- 
ted, because God will give sinners space for repent- 
ance ;* he subjects the fallen race to a gradual edu- 
cation to prepare it to receive the Saviour. This 
education was not the same for the Jews as for the 
Gentile nations. The former were intrusted with 
the great privilege of being the depositaries of the 
oracles of God.t They received a positive revelation ; 
but, although divine, this revelation was not absolute 

Ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Rom. iii, 25. 
ἱ᾿ Επιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ. Rom. iii, 2. 


268 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


and final in its character. Its one design was to 
prepare the way for the Redeemer. The Apostle 
notes two distinct periods in the history of Judaism— 
the patriarchal period and the Mosaic. In the former, 
a divine sanction had been by anticipation given to 
the constituent principles of the new covenant. In 
fact, the promise of salvation preceded the law, and 
Abraham was justified by faith in that promise. Rom. 
iv, 15-22 ; Gal. ili, 16-27. The law was only brought 
in by Moses. It was enough, therefore, in order to 
set aside legalism, to go back to the sources of Juda- 
ism, in which a divine seal was attached to justifica- 
tion by faith and free salvation. 

It is impossible not to admire the broad grasp 
which the Apostle takes of the intention and signifi- 
cance of the Mosaic dispensation. In that very law, 
so strenuously urged against him, he finds fresh proof 
of the necessity of Christianity. He shows that it 
has been the most active agent in fostering the desire 
for salvation, and he fully recognizes its divine 
authority ; so far from depreciating it, as the Gnos- 
tics subsequently do, he lauds and magnifies it. 
“The law is holy, and the commandment holy, just, 
and good.” * But, if it is holy, it is at the same time 
terrible, for it demands nothing less than absolute 
obedience on the part of man. “Cursed is every one 
that continueth not in all things which are written in 
the book of the law to do them.” Gal. iii, 10. This 
character of awfulness was necessary that it might 
accomplish its great mission in the work of prepara- 
tion. It proclaims commands and thunders threat- 
enings, but it communicates no moral strength to 


= Ὁ μὲν νόμος ἅγιος, καὶ ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία. Rom. vii, 12. 


BOOK Il.-—FIRST CENTURY. 269 


man.* It places him, impotent and awe-struck, in 
the presence of the holy God. If, on the one hand, 
it is a restraint on evil, preventing its excess, on the 
other, it is also a goad, urging into activity the desire 
of sin. This it excites and develops ; it removes from 
sin its character of ignorance, and constrains it to 
an open avowal of itself; placed face to face with 
sin, the law shows it to be what really it is, a posi- 
tive transgression of the will of God; by the law sin 
becomes exceeding sinful.t Thus it gives rise to ter- 
rible conflicts in the heart, and fills man with deep 
distress ; the law overwhelms the sinner, humbles 
him, lays him low in the dust, wrings from him a cry 
of anguish, which is the strongest expression of the 
need of redemption. Let us remember that, accord- 
ing to the doctrine of Paul, the law has not annulled 
the promise.{ The promise still rises above the 
threatenings of the law, and saves man from despair ; 
it directs his prayer toward God and the more he is 
crushed under the law, the more is he accessible to 
the consolations of the promise. So far, therefore, 
from being in antagonism to the covenant of grace, 
the law is the schoolmaster to bring man to Christ.§ 
In these few words, by what might be calleda stroke 
of genius, (if it were not traceable to a higher inspi- 
ration than that of any mere human intellect,) the 


* “Tt was weak through the flesh.”” Rom. viii, 3. 

+ ‘Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all 
manner of concupiscence, for without the law sin was dead.”” Rom. vii, 8. 

t ‘* And this I say, that the covenant which was confirmed before 
of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years 
after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none 
effect.” Gal. iii, 17. 

ὃ “Ὥστε ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν. Gal. ili. 24. 


270 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Apostle epitomizes his profound views of the law. 
The whole of the Mosaic dispensation was thus ad- 
mirably adapted to nourish the desire for salvation. 
The work of preparation was not confined tothe Jew- 
ish people. We find traces of it also, according to St. 
Paul, in the history of the Gentile nations. To them 
God spoke by the voice of nature, (Rom. i, 18—21,) 
and by the voice of conscience. Rom. ii, 14,15. The 
law written in the human heart was the schoolmaster 
to bring them also to Christ—one invested with less 
authority than the law of Moses, because of the dark- 
ening of the moral sense in man, but exerting, nev- 
ertheless, a very decided influence. In his discourse 
to the Athenians, Paul declares that God has “ deter- 
mined for all nations of men the times before 
appointed and the bounds of their habitation.” * It 
follows, that he rules over their destinies and directs 
the events of their history; and, as his purpose is 
the same for all sections of humanity, he seeks to 
make the Gentiles, no less than the Jews, conscious 
of the need of redemption. He uses, however, means 
altogether different in the two cases. While, among 
the Jews, their desire after salvation was fostered by 
direct revelations, it was awakened among pagan 
nations by the absence of revelation. It was the will 
of God that these should feel after him for them- 
selves, that they might prove, from their own expe- 
rience, whether thus groping after him they could 
“haply find him.” + The Gentiles were brought by 


*'Opicac προστεταγμένους καιρούς καὶ τὰς ὁροθεσίας τῆς κατοικίας 
αὐτῶν. Acts xvii, 26. 

+ Ζητεῖν τὸν Θεὸν, εἰ ἄραγε ψηλαφήσειαν αὐτὸν καὶ εὕροιεν. Acts 
XVll, 27. 


BOOK? P.——-FLRST CENTURY: 275 


these prolonged and fruitless efforts to a conscious- 
ness of their own impotence ; and they admitted, by 
erecting an altar to the unknown God, how unavail- 
ing had been alltheir endeavors. For them then, as for 
the Jews, the fullness of time had come, and prepa- 
tion having thus been made, the purpose of God had 
only to receive its fulfillment by the coming of 
Christ. 


$V. God “spared not his own Son, but delivered 
him up for us αἰ, 


The whole work of redemption is summed up in 
these words. They testify that it is in its very essence 
a manifestation of the love of the Father, of that eter- 
nal love which formed the design of saving us, and 
of renewing us in true righteousness. Before describ- 
ing the work of Christ, Paul is very explicit as to 
its nature. We have already said that he recognizes 
the eternal existence of the Son of God, “the image 
of the invisible God, by whom and for whom all things 
were created, who was before all things, and by 
whom all things consist.” + This Eternal Son took 


* Tod ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο, ἀλλά ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν αὐτόν. 
Rom. ὙΠ; 32. 

{Εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Col. i, 15-17. The expression πρωτότοκος 
(first-born of every creature,) has often been used in disproof of the 
divinity of Christ. M. Reuss himself regarded it as an inconsistency 
in the language of Paul. We find no difficulty in it. In the writ- 
ings of Paul, words constantly receive a special and partial signifi- 
cance from the context. Here, the sense of the word πρωτότοκος is 
defined by the general meaning of the passage in whichit occurs. The 
accent is not upon τόκος, but upon mpwrto¢. Paul regards the Son as 
the eldest of all beings. His right is pre-eminently the right of 
seniority ; but it does not follow because he is before all other beings 
that he is not himself eternal. The word τόκος in no way excludes 
the idea that Ile was begotten from all eternity. It would be as 


272 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


upon him a body like our own. Being in the form 
of God, not having to win by conquest a Godhead 
which was already his by right, he humbled himself, 
taking the form of a servant, and being found in 
fashion as a man.* In this state of humiliation, or 
rather of self-annihilation, there still dwelt in him 
“all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Col. u, 9. 
Thus the Apostle unhesitatingly applies to him the 
title of God; he calls him “God over all, blessed 
for ever.’ | While thus recognizing the divinity of 
Christ, the Apostle admits, however, a certain sub- 
ordination of the Son to the Father. This cannot, in 
our view, be restricted to the time of his manifesta- 
tion upon earth, and be supposed to originate solely 
in his temporary abasement, since Paul declares that 
in the end of time, that is, when the Son shall have 
reassumed all his glory, he will even then himself “be 
subject unto God, that God may be all in all.t Is 
not this subordination implied in the very name of 
the Son, the image of the Father, and the brightness 
of his glory? From all eternity he has received all 
the fullness of the Godhead, but still he has received 
it. Now, he who receives is subordinate to Him who 
gives; his subordination to the Father may have 
been more marked in the days of his humiliation ; 


reasonable to argue against the divinity of Christ from the word υἱός 
as from the word τόκος. 

*"O¢ ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ica Θεῷ 
(he did not regard equality with God as a prey to be taken) ἀλλά 
éavrov éxévooe. Phil. ii, 6, 7. Comp.1 Cor. x, 43 viii, 6; Rom. 
vill; 3.5" Gal--iw, 45-2: Cor. vill, Ὁ: 

+'O ὧν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς. Rom. ix, 5; Titusii, 13. See Reuss ii, rot. 

t{ Kai αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται TH ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα. 
1 Cor. xv; 28. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. | 273 


nevertheless, it subsisted before all time, and will 
subsist when time shall be no more. 

St. Paul speaks no less clearly with reference to 
the humanity than to the deity of Christ. If he is 
declared to be the Son of God according to the Spirit, 
he is no less the seed of David according to the 
flesh.* God sent his own Son in flesh like that of 
sinful men,f that is to say, in all the frailty and fee- 
bleness of earthly life, to suffer and to die. 2 Cor. 
Mine τ Pral i, 8. 

But Christ did more than simply assume human 
nature ; he became the head of a new humanity, and 
its representative before God. Paul establishes a 
parallel between the first Adam and him whom he 
calls the second Adam. “If by the offense of one,” 
he says, “many be dead, much more the grace of 
God, and the gift which he hath given us by his grace, 
of one man, shall abound unto many.” Rom. ν, 15. 
Thus, the second Adam comes to repair the wrongs 
done by the first. Between him and man there is a 
bond of strict solidarity. The difference between the 
first Adam and the second does not consist simply in 
this, that the first Adam brought sin and condemna- 
tion upon earth, while the second Adam wrought the’ 
world’s redemption. “The first Adam was made a 
living soul, but the last Adam isa quickening spirit.” 
In other words, the second Adam possesses in him- 
self the creating spirit which gives and sustains life. 


*Tevouévov ἐκ σπέρματος Aavid κατὰ σά τοῦ ὁρισθέ iod 
τὰ σάρκα, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ 
~ 2 ΄ ‘ ~ . 
Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα. Rom. i, 3, 4. 
Ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας. Rom. viii, 3. 
1 Ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ᾿Αδὰμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν, ὁ ἔσχατος ᾿Αδὰμ εἰς 
πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν. 1 Cor. xv, 45. 


18 


274-EARLY YEARS OF THE -CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


He is able, therefore, to restore life to those who have 
lost it, and to kindle a new and hving flame in the 
cold hearts of a condemned race. It remains for us 
to see in what way he restored the true relations 
between man and God, which are those of perfect 
righteousness. 

Redemption is not, with Paul, simply the declara- 
tion of the love of God and of his pardon; it is a 
positive work, a great and bleeding sacrifice. Jesus 
Christ “was delivered for our offenses.’* It is clear 
from the epistles of the Apostle that the death of 
Christ is the basis of our salvation, that his blood 
was shed for us, and that his sufferings have effected 
our reconciliation with God. “1 have determined,” 
he says emphatically, “to know nothing among you 
save jesus, Christ sand, him, crucitied). 11 coc ira 
In order to understand the close relation which he 
establishes between-the sufferings of Christ and the 
work of redemption, it must be remembered that the 
cause of man’s ruin was the transgression of the first 
man. “By one man sin entered into the world.” 
“By the disobedience of one many were made sin- 
ners.» Rom: ἐν, 12. τὸν - Sin: has -thus, mtermipred 
‘the normal relations between man and God; it is 
needful that these should be restored. Now, of these 
true relations obedience is the essence. It is there- 
fore necessary that the representative of the new race 
should present it prostrate before God in unreserved 
submission, and should thus cancel the effects of 
Adam's rebellion. The redemptive act is essentially 
one of obedience. ‘It is by the righteousness of one 
that all shall receive the righteousness which gives 


* Tlapedo6n διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα ἡμῶν. Rom. iv, 25. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 275 


life.’ * The death of Christ being a proof of absolute 
obedience is the supreme reparation of the rebellion 
of Adam. The second Adam saves us because he 
was “ obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.’ + 
Thus is the harmony re-established between man and 
God. But while the discord of the moral world was 
thus resolved by the second Adam, the condemnation 
resulting from sin was as effectually removed by him. 
Here it is that his suffering becomes so important 
an element in his work. Death had been the conse- 
Guence of sini “By sin death  eutered “intosthe 
world.” Rom. v, 12. In the language of Scripture 
death is the wages of sin, ¢ the terrible sanction 
attached to the law of God, the solemn vindication 
of his disregarded authority. Christ, in submitting 
to death, submitted to the conditions under which 
humanity had placed itself by sin; he thus became 
its true representative. By dying for us he was 
made a curse for us ; he was made szz, for, in so far 
as it was possible for a sinless being, he endured the 
penalty of sin. ‘He who knew no sin was for our 
sake treated by God as a sinner, that by him we 
might be made righteous before God.” § 

This death, being undeserved, was on his part a 
free sacrifice, and an act of obedience ; hence, its re- 
demptive value. In making his death an offering to 
God, an act of free and holy love, Christ reunited the 
broken link between man and God; his death thus 


*'Evog δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς. Rom. 
v, 18. 

+ Tevouevoc ὑπήκοος μέχρι. θανάτον, θανάτου δὲ σταυροῦ. Phil. ii, 8. 

1 Τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας θάνατος. Rom. vi, 23. 

ὃ Ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν. 2 Cor. v, 21. 


276 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


produced life and salvation. He, the Holy One and 
the Just, received the wages of transgression, but he 
yielded himself to death only to extract its sting, 
which is sin; by dying he gained the mightiest of 
victories over the powers of evil. He took upon him 
our condemnation; but, so assuming it, he trans- 
formed and subdued it. ‘He condemned sin in the 
flesh.” * The righteousness of God is written in let- 
ters of blazing light upon his cross, since, having 
come down to our sin-stained earth and joined him- 
self to the human race, he must needs die in spite of 
his holiness. That holiness, however, at the same 
time made his death a satisfaction of the divine jus- 
tice—a reparation of Adam’s disobedience. 

After a careful study of the declarations of St. 
Paul, we find ourselves unable to derive from them 
any other conception of redemption than this The 
death of Christ is a demonstration of the righteous- 
ness of God, since it gives proof that the representa- 
tive of the. sentenced race of man cannot save it 
without submitting to the penalty of sin; but the 
penalty thus endured is accepted by God as a suffi- 
cient reparation, because of the perfect obedience 
which it manifests. It is in this sense a redemption, 
a propitiation; this is the entire theory of Paul. 
Theology may find some links wanting in this dia- 
lectic chain ; it may attempt to explain and to enlarge 
upon the great doctrinal statements of the Apostle, 
but it has no right either to suppress or to add any. 
The judicial theory, according to which the suffering 
of Christ consisted in the feeling of rejection and of 
the wrath of God, is altogether alien to the conception 


* Περὶ ἁμαρτίας κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν iv τῇ σαρκί. Rom. viii, 3. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 277 


of Paul.* He always represents the Father as acting 
in harmony with the Son. “God,” he says, “ was in 
Christ reconciling the world unto himself.’ If he 
was in Christ he could not be against him. The 
judicial theory of Anselm is in contradiction with 
the general views of Paul on salvation. In Anselm’s 
system it is no longer free grace, a realization in time 
of the purpose of eternal love. The law of retaliation 
receives, on this theory, the supreme sanction of the 
cross ; forgiveness is robbed of its freeness. We are 
on the ground of legal right, not on that of mercy. 
It is, further, an erroneous conception of the work of 
redemption which disjoins the death of the Saviour 
from his life; the two are closely connected—the 
former the consummation of the latter. If he was 
obedient unto death, he was not obedient only in death. 
If He who knew no sin was treated as a sinner in the 
crucifixion, so was he no less in all the sufferings 
going before his death, and his death appears to us 
as the culminating point of the redemptive work 
which comprehends his whole life on earth.f 

*In favor of this view, Gal. ili, 13, is quoted: ‘Christ hath re- 
deemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” 
(γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶυ κατάρα.) But the Apostle is careful to add in 
explanation, ‘‘ For it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on 
a tree.” It is the outward fact of the crucifixion, therefore, which is 
the mark of the curse. It is so as suffering and death; it is so in 
itself, without the addition of the idea of damnation. Schweizer, in 
the third number of ‘Studien und Kritiken,” (1858,) regards this 
curse as simply the anathema of the synagogue which repudiated 
Christ ; and by the same act cut off and set at large the Jewish Chris- 
tians. But this explanation is altogether inadequate. ‘That given by 
us is much more in harmony with the whole theology of St. Paul. 

{ Ἢν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ. 2 Cor. ν, 19. 

t There is no subject more fraught with grave and weighty con- 
sijerations than that on which we have thus briéfly touched. Jmpar- 


27ὃ EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


The salvation achieved on the cross is consum- 
mated by the glorification of the Redeemer. The 
resurrection is, in Paul’s view, an essential condition 
of our justification.* “If Christ be not risen, then 
is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” 
1 Cor. xv, 14. Such is his argument. The resurrec- 
tion is, in truth, the divine pledge of the acceptance 
of the redeeming sacrifice. The risen Christ has 
entered into glory ; he is now at the right hand of 
God the Father, and he carries on his redeeming 
work by bestowing mediatorily upon us all the graces 
sained by his death. Rom: xiv, 93° Phil. 1,11. Fhe 
grace which comprises all the rest is the gift of the 
Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the living God, which is 
also the Spirit of Christ.— The Spirit is sent by the 
Saviour to his Church by virtue of his death, which 
has made an open way of access to the Father, cast- 


tial men, who are familiar with the history of theology, will admit 
that the theory of Anselm is so obscurely derivable from the words 
of St. Paul, that for centuries the Church had no conception of it. 
We must be on our guard against identifying with the truth of Scrip- 
ture that which has become a current and popular notion. To do 
so would be to give a lamentable application to the famous adage, 
Vox populi, vox Det. This theory has against it the gravest moral 
objections. It is enough for us at present to show that it is also op- 
posed to the teaching of the Apostles. It has been sustained by a 
Jegitimate dread of falling, if it were abandoned, into the rationalistic 
conception of redemption, according to which the Cross has no sig- 
nificance beyond the simple declaration of the love of God. Clearly, 
in spite of its exaggerations, Anselm’s theory is much more in har- 
mony with the scriptural representation of redemption than the 
rationalistic idea. But we are not reduced to any such alternative. 
A thoughtful study of the Scriptures will lead to a conception deeper 
and more consonant with moral claims, one which is alike honorable 
to God and satisfying to the conscience. 
*"HyépOn διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν. Rom. iv, 253; 2 Cor. v, 15. 
} Πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. Rom. viii, 9. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 279 


ing down every obstacle and barrier between us and 
him:  Ephes. ii, 18.7 This ‘Spirit’ ‘is’ the ““ Spirit of 
adoption,” (Gal. iv, 6; Rom. viii, 15;) the great 
agent in conversion and sanctification. It is he who 
quickens us, (Ephes. ii, 5,) by him it is we receive 
power and might from God, (Phil. ii, 13 ;) it is he, in 
a word, who helps all our infirmities. Rom. viii, 26. 

True righteousness is restored by the new Adam ; 
but we have yet to ascertain how sinful man may 
become a partaker in 1{----ἰὴ other words, how he may 
be justified. Paul’s reply is included in a single 
word: “ The just shall live by faith.” * Let us exam- 
ine more closely this ideal of justification, for it is 
that which attaches the special seal of originality to 
the doctrine of Paul. To justify, is, with him, to de- 
glare xton Des just: Romi, ΠΕ θυ: ἐπ," 24.5. Gal. pre: 
This declaration may be made either as a matter of 
law or of grace. As a matter of law, it can be ob- 
tained only by perfect righteousness. As a matter 
of grace, it is a gift of God, and may be bestowed on | 
the sinner.t But if justification is gratuitous, it is 
not unconditional ; it is granted only to faith, and we 
find here the moral element which permeates the 
whole theology of the Apostle. Rightly to under- 
stand what he intends by faith, it is necessary to in- 
quire what is its origin, its nature, its object. Its 
origin is twofold, according as we regard it in eternity 
orintime. In eternity it originates, as does the whole 
of salvation, in the decree of eternal love, that is, in 
election, of which we have already defined the signifi- 
cance and bearing, Every Christian has been the 


#'O δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται. Rom. i, 17. 
t Δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι. Rom. iil, 24, 


280 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


object of God’s love from all eternity, and the cause 
of his salvation is not in himself, but in the will of the 
Father.* In time, faith is necessarily preceded by 
the divine call : “ Faith cometh by hearing, and hear- 
ing by the word of God.” + But it is only produced 
in the heart by the Holy Spirit. It “is the gift of 
God.” + We must not, however, for a moment enter- 
tain the idea of any magical operation upon man with- 
out the participation of his own moral power. A con- 
sideration of the nature and object of faith will suffice 
to exclude any such idea. Faith commences by the 
drawing of the Spirit, a belief in the promises of God, 
a knowledge of the truth, (2 Cor. v, 17;) it is in this 
sense a firm and joyful confidence, to which Christian 
experience bears most distinct testimony ; (2 Cor. iv, 
12, 13;) it rests on the assurance that God has for- 
given us in his Son. But it does not stop there ; in 
the language of the Apostle it has a deep and mysti- 
cal meaning. Faith establishes between us and the 
Saviour a real and mysterious union, which makes 
him dwell in our hearts by faith, which keeps us 
rooted and grounded in him, § and enables us to say: 
“It is no more I that live, but Christ. who liveth in 
me... -Lhe, commencement of the sixth’ chapter ἐν 
the Romans shows us Paul's view of this subject. 
He sees in the act of baptism a true representation 
of faith. As in baptism the neophyte is plunged be- 
neath the water, soon to come forth again bearing 


ἢ Οὖς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισε. Rom. vill, 29. 

+ Ἢ’ πίστις ἐξ, akong. Rom. x, 17. 

1 Οὐκ ἐξ ὑμῶν: Θεοῦ τὸ δῶρον. Ephes. ii, 8. 

§ Κατοικῆσαι τὸν Χριστὸν διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. 
Ephes. ili, 17, 18, 


BOOK Ti:—FIRSE, CENTURY. 281 


the seal of consecration ; so the soul which embraces 
salvation is buried, at it were, in the death of Christ, 
and at once rises again with him into newness of life. 
It has grown to be one with him in his death and 
resurrection. * To believe is then to be closely united 
to Christ, by dying to ourselves, and becoming par- 
takers of his divine life. This does not imply that 
we may not be assured of our salvation until this 
union with Christ is complete. No, his righteous- 
ness covers us before God so soon as we have ac- 
cepted the pardon it has procured; but on the other 
hand, this acceptance is only real when a bond is 
formed between our souls and him; when we have 
begun to die and to live again with him; when we 
have been engrafted into his death and resurrection. 
We are not justified by the works of the law, but by 
the work of Christ, inwrought in our hearts by a 
living and sanctifying faith. Our whole salvation is 
of grace, and yet God, in order to save us, makes a 
powerful appeal to the living forces of our moral 
being. He consents to accept the appropriation of 
the work of redemption wrought by faith in our 
hearts, however imperfect it may be, if it be but in 
reality begun. Thus the very condition imposed 
upon us is itself an effect of his love, and a sie of 
the freeness of his gifts. 

The natural consequence of faith is conversion, or 
the renewing of the inner nature. Thus understood, 
it is inseparable from sanctification. If St. Paul re- 
pudiates strongly justification by works, he does so 


x EL Ν 4 " ΄ x 3 id 7. ~ 6 4 ? ~ ν᾽ λλ b 
L yap σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ 
καὶ τῆς ἀναστάδεως ἐσόμεθα. Rom. vi, 5. 
+ See the beautiful analysis of the word fazth in Reuss, 11, 21. 


282 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


because the works of the law do not truly realize the 
righteousness of God, but either cherish pride or lead 
to despair. Holiness springs from faith ; faith con- 
tains it in the germ, for sanctification consists simply 
in putting on Jesus Christ as sin is more and more 
put off. Self-mortification pierces the rebellious flesh 
of the Christian, as it were with the nails which 
wounded the Saviour on the accursed tree; it is a 
true crucifixion,* and like that of the Redeemer, it 
leads to a resurrection. The new man, created in 
the image of God, takes the place of the old, and is 
changed from glory to glory into the likeness of 
Christ. The ideal and the end of holiness is to be 
ablertoisay, “For me tocdive is) Christ.) Philo 
We know with what strong and solemn eloquence 
Paul incites Christians to seek this salutary death and 
blessed resurrection, urging them to identify them- 
selves with that Saviour whose life he himself mani- 
fested, and the mark of whose wounds he rejoiced to 
bear. This is indeed the highest morality; that 
which comes down from above, which finds its law 
in the heart of the God who is love, and reads it 
written afresh in characters of blood upon the cross. 
Love is its Alpha and Omega. “Be ye imitators of 
God ;” + this is its principle. “The love of Christ 
constrains us: if one is dead, all are dead ;” (2 Cor. 
v, 14;) this is its motive. “The grace of our Lord 
Jesus Christ be with your spirit ;” (Gal. vi, 18 ;) this 
is its power. It is as efficacious as it is perfect ; for 
the love which is its supreme ideal is communicated 


ἢ Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι. Gal. ii, 20. 
tTivecbe οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ... καὶ περιπατεῖτε ἐν ἀγάπῃ, 
‘\ Ν ς Ν ᾽ ΄ ° ~ 
καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς. Ephes. v, 1, 2. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 283 


as it is revealed. Paul has celebrated this love in 
language truly sublime. No poetry can surpass his 
peean on charity. We feel that this is the highest 
attainment possible even to inspired human thought, 
for love in man, responding to the eternal love of God, 
is the glorious re-establishment of righteousness upon 
earth ; it is restoration perfected, salvation realized. 

The Apostle, however, goes further than a merely 
individual appropriation of salvation. It being the 
purpose of God to reconstitute a true humanity in 
Christ, it was necessary that a new people of God 
should be formed, and a religious society organized, 
in which faith and love should be essential elements 
of the mutual relations between men. This new 
people of God is the Church. Paul compares it some- 
times to a temple of which Christ is the corner-stone ; 
(ater, ii, 16, 17, 2 Cor. vi, 165 Ephes.! ἢ 20,-22°5) 
sometimes to a body of which he is the head. Rom. 
τὰ Stk Con, xi, τ Ephiés:*i5. 23.2 It-thus forms 
a living organism, a holy community, differing widely 
from such an institution as was the Jewish theocracy. 
It is entered, not by birth, but by faith ; all exter- 
nal distinctions are thus abolished. Here there is 
“neither Jew nor Greek, circumcision nor uncircum- 
cision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ 
is all in all.’ * The Apostle recognizes in all his let- 
ters that the Churches to which he writes present a 
melancholy admixture of good and evil; but he urges 
upon them as a duty to purify themselves from all the 
corrupt elements which defile and bring dishonor 
upon them. 1 Cor. v, 11-13. The sign of admission 
into the Church is baptism, which symbolizes the two 


* Td πάντα καὶ ἐν πάσι Χριστός. Col. ili, II. 


284 EARLY YEARS. OF THE ‘CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


phases of conversion, and thus is no less significant 
of death unto sin than of the new life to which the 
Christian is called. Rom. vi, 4. The holy communion 
is the Lord’s Supper, taken in remembrance of his 
redeeming death. 1 Cor. xi, 25. It draws closer the 
bonds of brotherhood, for by it all the members of 
the Church drink of the same cup of blessing. 1 Cor. 
πῇ; 17. Tt isat: once the-solemn. symbol -of the 
divine love, and the pledge of Christian oneness. 
The Church, the holy community of the redeemed 
of Christ, whose calling it is to strive against sin and 
to fulfill the law of love, represents to us humanity as 
it is to be formed anew according to the will of God. 
It is thus the fulfillment of Him who fulfills all in us 
all/*—the fulfillment, that is, of that eternal purpose 
of divine love which was frustrated in the fall and is 
realized in redemption. 

But the kingdom of God extends far beyond this 
world. The family is in heaven as well as upon earth. 
Ephes. ii, 15. The angels form, with the redeemed, 
the heavenly host of which Christ is the Captain, 
(Coli, 10 ;phess1°20,,' 20 ἢ “to; which: 1s pen 
petually at war with the dark kingdom of evil, with 
the malignant spirits of the air sent forth on the be- 
hests of the prince of this world. Ephes, ii, 2; vi, 12; 
2 Cor. iv, 4. These powers of darkness, though van- 
quished at the cross of Christ, (Col. ii, 15,) continue 
to fight against the Church, but they are doomed to 
inevitable defeat. 1 Cor. xv, 24-26. 

We shall not dwell at length upon the picture 
drawn by St. Paul of the last times. He has not . 
done more than paraphrase the prophecies given by 


*T0O πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμένου. Ephes. i, 23. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 285 


Christ. He proclaims a wide diffusion of the Gospel 
light, which is to spread first over the Gentile world, 
then to return’ to enlighten also that people of the 
Jews, who will have thus so strikingly verified in their 
pride the saying of the Master, “The first shall be 
last.” Even this tardy illumination is to come to 
them only on condition that they abide not still in 
unbelief.* Rom. xi, 23-25. The prophecy being that 
the whole earth shall be filled with the knowledge of 
the truth as the waters cover the sea, the country 
which was the cradle of revelation cannot remain 
forever in darkness. * The grief of a temporary 
rejection, and the privileges granted to the Gentile 
world, will in the end stir up Israel to jealousy, and 
bring it back to God. Rom. xi, 31. 

When the Gospel shall have thus subdued the ob- 
duracy of the Jews its final triumph will be at hand, 
and the conversion of Israel will be the precursive 
sign of the glorious consummation of the kingdom 
of God. Rom. xi, 15. Before this, however, a terrible 
conflict will take place between the Church and. - 
Antichrist personified in the “man of sin ;’ (2 Thess. 
ii, 3-8 ;) and the close of this conflict will be the 
return of Christ in the clouds to judge the world, 
and to raise the dead. 1 Thess. iv, 14-18. He is 
himself the first-fruits of the resurrection ; we shall 
be made like him. Our body, like the grain of corn 
which dies in the ground to live again as the golden 
ear, shall be raised glorious and incorruptible. 1 Cor. 
xv, 42-45. The Christians who shall be living at the 
coming of the Lord shall be changed without dying.* 


"Ἐπ Thess. iv, 13-16. The idea of a first resurrection has no foun- 
dation in Paul’s epistles. The passage 1 Thess. iv, 16, makes no al- 


286 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


The judgment will follow immediately on the resur- 
rection; it is spoken of as the great day of the 
ford. 2°Cor.v, 10>. ΣΤ ιν ας Rom ΕΝ 
death, the last enemy, shall have been destroyed, 
then shall the Son restore the kingdom to the Fa- 
ther, that he may Je all zn all.* This expression 
seems to open before us a boundless view of the com- 
passions of God. It is limited, however, by the 
words of St. Paul as to the eternal punishment of the 
wicked in the day of the Lord.t We have thus two 
distinct assertions which we do not find brought into 
harmony in the theology of the Apostle. He asso- 
ciates nature herself with the grand consummations 
of redemption ; he represents her as groaning and 
travailing in pain for the deliverance of the sons of 
God, ¢ and he leads us to anticipate a sort of resur- 
rection of the material world as the abode of glorified 
humanity. 

The views of the Apostle as to the nearness of 
this closing period of history, which is to be inaugu- 
rated by the personal return of Christ, seem to have 
undergone some modifications. In the first stage of 
his apostolical career he supposes, with all the Chris- 
tians of that time, that but a very few years will in- 
tervene before the coming of the day of the Lord ; 
he is even persuaded that it will arrive before his own 


lusion to it. Πρωτώς (first in order) applies to the Christians already 
dead, who shall be raised before the Christians still living are changed ; 
but the two events will transpire on the same day. The judgment 
is called παρουσία. (1 Thess. ii, 19; see 2 Tim. iv, 1, where it is said 
that Christ will judge the quick and the dead at his appearing.) 

* "Iva ἢ ὃ Θεὸς τα πάντα ἐν πῶσιν. τ Cor. xv, 28. 

t Ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον. 2 Thess. i, 9. 

1 Πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει kai συνωδίνει ἄχρι τοῦ viv. Rom. viil, 22. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 287 


death.* Subsequently, in the Roman prison, on the 
eve of sealing his testimony with his blood, he receives 
new light. This is very evident from his Epistle to 
the Philippians. Phil. i, 20-25... He learns before his 
death that centuries are to be granted to the Church 
for the fulfillment of its work, and for sowing the 
seed of the Gospel in the vast field opened to mis- 
sionary labor. 

This exposition of the doctrine of St. Paul antici- 
pates the solution given by him of the great question 
of the relation of the two covenants. We have seen 
that he fully recognizes the divine and preparatory 
value of the Old Testament ; (Gal. ili, 19-23 ; iv, I-65) 
but he regards it as only the shadow and type of the 
salvation of which the Gospel brings us the substance. 
Col. ii, 17. He contrasts the new law with the old. 
2 Cor. iil, 6-9. The old law, which includes the 
whole Mosaic dispensation, was external ; it was the 
law of the letter, the law of precepts regulating the 
life in detail, but not reaching to the inner nature. 
It was graven on stone, not in the heart ; and it re- 
mained external to man, because it could exercise 
only the ministry of death, and bring man under con- 
demnation. It had no transforming power ; its char- 
acter of terror forbade its being received into the heart. 
The new law, on the contrary, is a ministry of life, be- 
cause by it true righteousness (2 Cor. ili, 9) is realized 
in our salvation ; thus it is written on the living table 
of the heart. It is the ministry of the Spirit which 
quickens. It has finally’ taken the place of the law 
of precepts and of ordinances, which was nailed to 
the cross of Christ. Col. ii, 14. The Christian is en- 


*"Hueic¢.ot ζῶντες: 1 Thess. iv, 15. 


288 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


tirely set free from that law, but he is so much the 
more dependent on the law of the Spirit of life, which 
is in Christ Jesus.* Thus all ceremonial observances, 
all legal distinctions, are done away ; Christianity is 
settled on its true, broad basis, and all the exclusive- 
ness of the ancient law melts before the manifestation 
of eternal love. The Apostle of grace raises us to 
such an elevation that the questions bearing upon 
the circumcison of converted Gentiles and the ob- 
servance of the law, which so long engaged the 
Church, sink out of sight. Christianity appears in its 
true character ; the edifice of doctrine built up by St. 
Paul is so vast that within it all the revelations of 
God range themselves in majestic proportions; so 
that being “rooted and grounded in love, we may be 
able to comprehend with all saints what is their 
breadth, and length, and depth, and height.” Eph. 
ili, 18. 

The apology of the Apostle is closely connected 
with his doctrine ; it is animated by the same spirit, 
and in it also grace occupies the foremost place. 
Truth is alien to the soul in its natural state. “The 
natural man discerneth not the things of the Spirit 
of God, for they are foolishness unto him.” 1 Cor. 
ili, 14. The preaching of the Cross is to them that 
perish foolishness, (1 Cor. i, 18 ;) but it is none the 
less the wisdom of God to them that are saved—to 
those, that is, who have received the Spirit of God, 
and whose hearts he has opened. Paul, however, 
while recognizing in every man an element of the 
divine life, bases his apology for Christianity on the 


* Διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης, οὐ γράμματος, ἀλλὰ πνεύματος. 2 Co- 
rinthians iii, 6. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 289 


need of redemption, of which the soul is painfully 
conscious, and of which he traces the manifestations 
even in the midst-of the Gentile world. In his dis- 
course at Athens he constantly appeals to this secret 
aspiration of the human heart after the true God. 
“ Whom ye tgnorantly worship him declare I unto 
you.” Acts xvii, 23. Thus the Apostle avers, on the 
one hand, that man cannot, by his own wisdom, ar- 
rive at the possession of the truth, and throws down 
the challenge to all the philosophy of the ancients, in 
the noble words, ‘‘ Where is the wise? where is the 
scribe ? where is the disputer of this world ? hath not 
God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” 1 Cor. 
i, 20. On the other hand, he admits the existence 
of spiritual cravings in the unconverted man, who is 
at once desirous and powerless to find God. Hence 
results a state of sadness and unrest, which should 
prepare him to receive the Gospel, But he will not 
receive it unless he suffers himself to be influenced 
by the Holy Spirit ; and we find here, in their indis- 
soluble union, grace and freedom, the operation of 
God, and the responsibility of man—in one word, the 
great and legitimate dualism of the teaching of Paul. 
Let us observe that in addressing the heathen, he 
dwells more upon the internal than upon the ex- 
ternal evidences of his message. He limits himself 
to relating in its solemn simplicity the fact of redemp- 
tion, while his great endeavor is to bring the soul 
into contact with Christ; he even goes so far as to 
place in the same category the Jew who reguzres a 
sign, and the Greek who seeks after wisdom.* In 


* "Tovdaior σημεῖα αἰτοῦσι καὶ “EAAnvec σοφίαν ζητούσιν. 1, Corin- 
thians i, 22. 


19 


290. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


truth, faith founded simply upon miracle is no more 
faith but sight, quite as much as the faith which is 
founded only on philosophic reasoning. It is no 
longer that seeing of the invisible, that mystic union 
with Christ, which lifts us above the sphere of the 
outward and sensible into that of the divine life. 

-In addressing the Jews, Paul based his arguments Ὁ 
chiefly on the sacred Scriptures, of which he dis- 
tinctly acknowledges the full inspiration. 2 Tim. 
iii, 16. He quotes them with great freedom,* and 
his exegesis is sometimes very bold, sometimes very 
minute, sometimes almost rabbinical in its method ; 
(See Gal. iv, 22—26;) but taken as a whole it dis- 
plays a deep and admirable comprehension of the 
Old Testament. It is with the exegetical method of 
St. Paul as with the incorrect language which he 
speaks ; he turns both to the best possible account, 
and expresses the highest truths of revelation while 
making use of an instrument for the imperfection of 
which he was not responsible, since he received it 
from those who went before him. 

' We are now in a position to estimate the views 
of the Tiibingen school on the theology of St. Paul. 
To that school it appears a system entirely new, and 
differing widely from the doctrine of Christ. To us, 
on the contrary, it seems evident that the teaching 
of Paul is based entirely on that of the Master.~ It 
would be easy to connect all the essential points in 
Paul's theology with words of Christ, contained in 
the first two Gospels. It is, in the first place, uni- 
versally admitted that his prophetic delineation of 
the last times is in all points in conformity with the 


* See, for example, Gal. iii, 16. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 201 


last discourses of the Saviour. We have already 
shown that his rich and ample tribute to the majesty 
of Christ as the Son of God is but an expansion of 
the doctrine contained in germ in the Gospels of 
Matthew and Mark. The rejection of the Jews as a 
nation is clearly foretold in the parables. Matt. xix, 
sorixxe 16s MaGkescaa1, = ΣΕ δι as. set forth.m.: the 
synoptics, no less than in the epistles of Paul, as the 
condition of the forgiveness of sins. Matt. ix, 28; 
xxl, 22; Mark xi, 24. Jesus Christ repeatedly in- 
sisted on the importance of his death; and the ac- 
count of the passion is the sublime commentary on 
his words. We may add that Paul was equally fa- 
miliar with that portion of evangelical tradition which 
has come down to us in the fourth Gospel, and that 
being so near the source, he doubtless drew co- 
piously from it. He does, in fact, quote words of 
the Master of which we have no record apart from 
his writings. 1 Cor. vii, 10; Acts xx, 35. Paul never 
passed the line laid down by Him who said, “I am 
the truth.” But it was given him by the Divine 
Spirit to discern most important applications of 
those words ; enlightened by a special revelation, he 
definitively solved the great question of the relation 
of the two covenants, and he successfully asserted, 
both by his powerful arguments and by his mission- 
ary activity, the complete independence of Christi- 
anity. He achieved its recognition as the ultimate 
religion, which had broken down the wall of partition 
between man and God, and at the same time had 
leveled all barriers between man and man—the re- 
ligion of mankind redeemed by the blood of the cross. 
Jesus Christ had died to give it birth; Paul in 


292 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


preaching it was the most faithful and the most do- 
cile of his disciples. 


S VI. Zhe Gospel a Luke and the Epistle to the 
flebrews. 


The Gospel of Luke bears distinct marks of the 
mind of St. Paul. It gives special prominence to the 
character of mercy in the work and teachings of the 
Master. It is the Gospel which contains the beauti- 
ful parables of the lost sheep and of the prodigal son. 
Luke xv. It carefully records the calling of the 
seventy disciples, (Luke x, 1,) who, by their sym- 
bolic number, represented not simply, like the twelve 
Apostles, the tribes of Israel, but all the nations of 
the earth. It traces the genealogy of Christ back to 
Adam, while Matthew stops at Abraham. - It is im- 
possible not to recognize in these various character- 
istics the idea so strikingly exhibited by Paul, of the 
abrogation of all national distinctions by the cross of 
Christ. The book of the Acts of the Apostles is evi- 
dently written from the same point of view. The 
sacred historian concentrates his powers in depicting 
the life and labors of the great missionary whose dis- 
ciple he was ; we feel that he is thoroughly imbued 
with Paul’s doctrine, and with that conciliatory breadth 
of spirit which in Paul was associated with irrefuta- 
ble force of argument. Luke delights to show that 
in their work the Apostles acted in concert. 

We have already noticed that the Epistle to the 
Hebrews is also traceable to what may perhaps be 
called the Pauline school of thought.* It contains 
the leading principles of Paul’s theology, but it pre- 


* See Bleek’s admirable commentary, “ Der Brief an die Hebrzer.” 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 293 


sents them in a new aspect and makes entirely new 
applications of them. This letter, addressed, as we 
have seen, to Judaizing Christians, is designed to 
exalt the glory of the new covenant, and to show its 
superiority to the old economy. The author first 
compares Moses to Jesus Christ, and proves without 
difficulty that there is an immeasurable distance be- 
tween the great Prophet of Israel and the Son of God. 
He then establishes a parallel between the results 
obtained by the law and those assured to us by the 
Gospel. He is thus led to a detailed comparison of 
the Jewish priesthood with the eternal priesthood of 
Christ. The Epistle concludes with exhortations 
often severe, always admirable. The last three chap- 
ters are unquestionably among the most beautiful and 
the most stirring portions of the New Testament. 

It is at once obvious that the writer of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews has a very thorough acquaintance 
with the Jewish religion ; he interprets its types and 
symbols, and makes very effective use of exegesis as 
bold as it is learned. Every page shows traces of the 
Judaism of Alexandria, transfigured, however, by the 
Spirit of God, as the rabbinic lore of Gamaliel became 
in the case of Paul. The writer insists not less 
forcibly than the Apostle on the exalted dignity of 
Christ. He declares that he is far higher than the 
angels ; he gives to him the name of God. He is the 
Son, the brightness of the Father’s glory, the express 
image of his person.* These expressions bear a 
striking analogy to the declarations of St. John con- 
cerning the Word ; they are more explicit than those 

* Heb. i, 3, 4, 8; iii, 6; i, 3-Ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ 
τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. 


204. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN ΘΕ ΕΘΗ 


of Paul. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
dwells with beautiful and touching emphasis on the 
humiliation of the Son of God: “It behooved him,” 
he says, “to be made like unto his brethren, that he 
might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things 
pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins 
pine. people.” Heb aie. ΠΟ δε ΟΥ̓ medempmon 
is clearly stated. Jesus Christ is not only our High 
Priest, he is also the Victim by whose blood we obtain 
peace. His “blood speaketh better things than that 
of Abel.” Heb. xii, 24. The sacrifice of the Saviour 
is a perfect sacrifice, which needs not to be repeated ; 
its perfectness proceeds from the spotless holiness of 
Pim who offers. it: eb: wil, 27% ix, 26. < Ther blood 
of Christ is not simply the pledge of the promise of 
God, it actually takes away sin. Heb. ix, 20-26. The 
redeeming sacrifice opens to us the way into the true 
sanctuary, into which our High Priest has already 
entered gloriously.* In all these respects the new 
covenant is incomparably superior to the old. This 
conception of the sacrifice of Calvary contains no ele- 
ment not already included in the doctrine of St. Paul. 
The connection is as close between suffering and holi- 
ness ; but the parallel constantly drawn by the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews between the economy 
of Moses and the new covenant leads him to make 
more frequent use of the language of the Old Testa- 
ment, and to lay more stress on that which we may 
call the aspect of blood in the redemptive sacrifice. 
He affirms no less forcibly than Paul the abolition of 
that old law which made nothing perfect, but he has 
not formed so deep a conception of its preparatory 


* Kic ἀθέτησιν ἁμαρτίας. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 295 


work. To him it is mainly “the shadow of good 
thingeseto, come, (lich. x, >) the type of blessings 
already bestowed in part upon Christians, in part re- 
served for the Church triumphant in the eternal habi- 
tations. Neither is the question of the appropriation 
of salvation treated with the same fullness as in the 
Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians. We 
cannot grant, however, that the sacred writer makes 
faith to consist in a mere conviction of the mind, 
when we consider with what urgency he impresses 
the necessity of holiness.* 

To establish that under the economy of grace the 
justice of God maintains all its rights ; to show that 
the law of love is under a sanction the more tremen- 
dous because of the boundlessness of.the divine mercy 
declared in it; (Heb. ii, 1=3) to set. forth that the 
God of sovereign compassions is also a consuming 
πεῖς (lieb., xi,/20,:) to prove, in,.a word, that the 
superiority of the new covenant over the old renders 
rebellion more inexcusable, and therefore liable to 
severer chastisement—such is the substance of the 
exhortations with which the Epistle to the Hebrews 
concludes. The author even goes so far as to place 
those brought into the new covenant under the menace 
of an irrecoverable fall, so fearful is he that by a ter- 
rible profanation of the love of God the sinner may 
confound grace with impunity.— The teaching of the 


ΞΜ. Reuss (vol. ii, p. 152) has dwelt too exclusively on pas- 
sages like Heb. xi, 1. The close of the chapter, which sets forth 
faith as the source of religious heroism, is the commentary on that 
passage. 

+ We can give no other interpretation to the words in Hebrews 
vi, 4-8. The text is clear, and cannot be evaded. Such expressions as 
“‘having tasted of the heavenly gift,’”’ being ‘‘ made partakers of the 


296 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Pauline school is thus brought into close correspond- 
ence with that of James, and leads to the same result. 
All shades of doctrine melt and blend, and the unity 
of the apostolic teaching remains intact. 


Holy Ghost,” have no doubtful meaning. The sacred writer does 
not say that such a possibility is realized, but he places it before us. 

[But what proof is there that what is always posstble does not some- 
times, or often, happen ?]|—Am. Ep. 


BOOK TI.—FIRST CENTURY. 297 


CHAPTER. IV. 


STATE OF THE, CHURCH DURING. THIS ‘PERIOD. «~~ FIRST 
SYMPTOMS OF HERESY. 


HE picture we have given of the opposition en- 
countered by Paul, from enemies and detract- 
ors, has already shown us that this epoch was preg- 
nant with stormy controversy in the Churches. They 
had to pass through a sharp, but salutary, crisis. 
The conferences at Jerusalem had dissipated all 
misunderstanding among the Apostles, but it was 
not possible that they should have quieted and reas- 
sured all minds in the same degree. The fanaticism 
of the Judaizing party in the Church was not to be 
so promptly disarmed by the conciliatory measures 
adopted in the first Council. It had lost its cause 
when tried before the highest representative assembly 
of the Church ; it must make its next appeal to the 
tribunal of popular passions. It began, therefore, to 
scatter every-where seeds of dissension, and sought to 
destroy, both by craft and violence, the credit and 
authority of St. Paul. While this fanatical party 
succeeded in stirring up the pride of the Jews against 
the comprehensiveness of the Christian doctrine, it 
also found means to reach the Gentile converts, whose 
faith was yet in its infancy. We shall see chiefly in 
Asia Minor how Jewish prejudices made common 
cause with oriental dualism, and fostered dangerous 
errors in the Church under the name of Christianity 


298 BARELY YEARS (OF THE :CHRISTIANZENRUREH, 


Thus, in the very first century, originated the two 
great heresies which, whether in opposition or in 
combination, or transfusing their spirit into the doc- 
trine and ecclesiastical organization of the Church, 
were destined to play a very important part in the 
history of primitive Christianity. Ebionitism and 
Gnosticism have their germ in the apostolic age. 
It is of consequence to note their first appearance, 
while carefully guarding against confounding the date 
of their commencement with that of their full develop- 
ment. We must not attribute to them, from the first, 
the systematic character they afterward assumed ; 
but we must not, on the other hand, fail to mark the 
earliest indications of these powerful heresies, which, 
had they gained the ascendency, would have stifled 
Christianity in its cradle. 

They did not originally declare themselves as con- 
stituted and organized heresies, altogether distinct 
from the Church. In the first century they rather 
sought to undermine it from within than to attack it 
from without ; but it will not be difficult to show that 
such attempts were frustrated, and that the Church 
repudiated their dogmas as foreign and dangerous 
elements. 

This important fact will appear very clearly in the 
rapid sketch we are about to give of the state of the 
Churches during this period. We shall not adhere 
strictly to the chronological order of their formation, 
already sufficiently indicated in our account of the 
missions of the Apostles, but shall follow the devel- 
opment of the Judaizing tendency through its various 
phases before describing the inroads of oriental 
theosophy. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 209 


SI. The Fudaizing tendency in the Churches of 
Palestine, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia, and Italy. 


We have seen the Church at Jerusalem forming 
itself into an organized body, borrowing its principal 
institutions from the synagogue, but still remaining 
faithful to the Jewish worship. Judging from these 
conditions alone we might suppose that it would be 
especially distinguished by opposition to the work 
of St.Paul. Such, however, was not the case, as 
is amply proved by the authority exercised in 
that Church by James, the brother of the Lord. It 
is certain that the Christians of Jerusalem rallied 
around James, and manifested to him on all oc- 
casions the most sincere and respectful deference. 
As he exercised no episcopal function, strictly so 
called, his influence must have been entirely of a 
moral character. We have had evidence in the first 
Council of the breadth of his spirit, since he gave the 
right hand of fellowship to Paul, and sacrificed with- 
out hesitation the narrow notions of the Judaizing 
Christians. The author of the beautiful epistle we 
have analyzed was not the man to put salvation by 
circumcision in place of salvation by Christ. We 
cannot, then, suppose any open hostility to Paul at 
Jerusalem during the life-time of James, and it is an 
ascertained fact that their death took place at the 
same period. Further, St. Paul always continued in 
the most friendly relations with the Church at Jeru- 
salem ; he visited it again and again at the close of 
his missionary journeys ; he himself carried thither 
the offerings of the converted Gentiles to relieve the 
poverty of the Christians of Palestine. Acts xi, 30 ; 


300 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


1 Cor. xvi, 3. -The most sincere affection bound him 
to the flders who presided over those Churches ; he 
received unquestionable proofs of their affection ; 
they glorified God for his success. Acts xxi, 19, 20. 
It is needful, therefore, to show that the Church at 
Jerusalem was at variance with its representatives in 
order to establish its hostility to Paul. To assert, as 
some have done, that the imprisonment of the Apos- 
tle was brought about by the intrigues of the party 
of Judaizing Christians, and not by the party of the 
Pharisees, is not only to hazard a gratuitous supposi- 
tion, but also to invalidate the most positive state- 
ments of the history of primitive Christianity.* 

It would, however, be equally erroneous to suppose 
that the doctrine of Paul was fully comprehended by 
the majority of the Christians in Palestine. Thanks 
to the influence of James, the principles asserted by 
Paui had not been formally condemned; but they 
were not generally recognized, either in their real 
character or in their issues. The first Council had 
bound Jews by birth to adhere to the prescriptions 
of the law. The converted Jews, in Gentile cities, 
who of necessity lived in association with Christians 
of Greek extraction, had been led to shake off, in 
many particulars, the Mosaic yoke. At a distance 
from the religious center of their nation they had no 
other synagogue than the assemblies of the new 
worship. Thus their habits became gradually modi- 
fied, and their spirit enlarged. At Jerusalem it was 
otherwise. The Church of that city numbered sev- 
eral thousands of Jews zealous for the law, (Acts 
ΧΧΙ, 20,) who lived in an atmosphere of Judaism, and 


* Baur, ‘‘ Christ. der drei erst. Jahrhund.,” p. 65. 


BOOK -4F1.>—FIRST--CEN FURY. 301 


repaired daily to the temple. The greater part had 
sincerely received the faith in Jesus, and _ perse- 
cution, constantly renewed, raised a barrier between 
them and the body of their people. But they were 
still strongly imbued with national prejudices, though 
they refrained from any intolerant expression of them, 
and continued in communion with the Churches 
gathered from among the Gentiles. They are not to 
be confounded with those teachers in Galatia or 
Corinth, who placed themselves beyond the arena 
of conciliation, and openly violated the decisions of 
the first Council. They were in that intermediate 
state, which was both natural and legitimate, on the 
theory of the gradual development of the Church. 
Undoubtedly, there were at Jerusalem disciples of 
the narrow school, but the predominating influence 
was that of the broad and conciliating Christianity 
of James. It appears, however, probable, that after 
the death of the latter there may have been a Judaiz- 
ing reaction among the Christians of Palestine. 

We know that the years preceding the fall of Jeru- 
salem were marked by numerous revolts among the 
Jews. The national spirit was stimulated to fanati- 
cism, and the passions of the people were kept in 
violent agitation. Some of the converted Jews could 
not breathe with impunity this heated atmosphere. 
At their side were ardent champions of the inde- 
pendence of their beloved country ; was it strange 
if, with renewed patriotic zeal, there should have 
come a revival of those religious ideas which had 
ever been so closely identified with the glory of their 
nation? It is possible, also, that in the persecutions 
which did not cease to rage against the Church, de- 


302. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


fections may have multiplied. From the Epistle to 
the Hebrews we learn that the Church at Jerusalem 
was threatened with apostasies ; some had begun to 
forsake “the assembling of themselves together.” * 
The general tone of the letter, however, proves that 
the faith of the Christians at Jerusalem rested on the 
same basis as that of the Churches founded by Paul. 
The writer has no fear of not being understood when 
he rises at once to the sublimities of the faith. He 
would assuredly not have spoken as he does, without 
preface or comment of the person of Jesus Christ, 
had he been addressing a company of declared Ebi- 
onites. We shall find the Ebionite heresy springing 
up in the following century on the ruins of the holy 
city ; but if the germ from which it was to grow was 
already present, it was not yet developed, nor could 
it be while the influence of a James and an Apollos 
was still paramount. 

The other Churches of Palestine, and those of the 
neighboring countries, were in a position similar to 
that of the Church at Jerusalem ; being, however, less 
directly under the influence of the Apostles, they 
were more accessible to the spirit of intolerance. The 
Epistle of James, which was written for them, dis- 
closes serious irregularities in their conduct. They 
had evidently allowed themselves to be carried away 
by stormy contentions ; into these they had thrown 
much bitterness of spirit, much of that wisdom which 
was earthly, sensual, devilish ; and, under pretext of 
defending the interests of truth, they had forgotten 
and belied its essential element of love. Jas. lil, 15, 16. 

* Heb. vi, οι πὸ 3 25+ (eee bleek’ * Brief an’ die" Hebmeens 
pp. 56, 57.) 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 303 


Favored by these sharp disputations, formalism 
had crept into the Church; piety had become 
a mere sound of words, a deceptive appearance, a 
purely intellectual belief, with no power over the 
heart—theory without practice, faith without works. 
James ii, 16-18. Worldly distinctions had been in- 
troduced into the Church; the poor were slighted, 
while the rich were courted ; and we may judge the 
extent of the evil from the vehement indignation of 
James. James i, 9Q-I1 ; ll, I-7; v, I-7. It is impos- 
sible not to discover in these characteristics a revival 
of the old Pharisaic spirit, which had only changed 
its garb, and had insinuated itself among the Chris- 
tians of these regions through the inlet of their sec- 
tarian prejudices. We see reason to think that the 
Judaizing form of Christianity assumed a more de- 
cided character in the small towns of Palestine than 
at Jerusalem. It is probable that the fanatical ad- 
herents of the old law left that city after the Council, 
and sought to propagate their views wherever they 
could hope to find credit for them. We have seen 
emissaries of this party making unfair use of the 
name of James in their attempt to divide the Church 
at Antioch, and so far accomplishing their end as to 
draw Peter into an unworthy concession, and to ac- 
quire considerable influence in this early sphere of 
Christian missions. There is full ground, however, 
for believing that the effect produced by them was 
not abiding, and that the Church at Antioch retained 
its original type. Judzeo-Christianity found a strong- — 
hold only in the Churches of Galatia, of Corinth, and 
of Philippi; and even there, though it produced for a 
time sharp divisions, it achieved no ultimate triumph, 


304. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


It was a leaven of bitterness which troubled the 
Churches, but it failed to leaven them altogether, 
and could not maintain its influence against the irre- 
sistible reasoning of Paul. 

We have described the first fervent attachment of 
the Galatians to the Apostle who had preached the 
Gospel to them. Yielding again to the same remark- 
able susceptibility to impressions, they soon allowed 
themselves to be led away, and, as it were, bewitched 
by false teachers, the declared enemies of Paul. 
These false teachers, though imbued with all Jewish 
prejudices, do not appear to have been Jews by 
birth.* They were proselytes fanatically zealous for 
the law of Moses, like those Hellenist Jews who had 
denounced Stephen to the Sanhedrim. They had 
embraced Christianity in form only, and sought to 
stifle it under a weight of ritual observances. Some 
have supposed them to be messengers from Peter 
and James, because theirs is the authority invoked.f 
It is evident, however, that by their violent hostility 
to St. Paul, they placed themselves in opposition to 
the Apostles at Jerusalem, who had given to him the 
right hand of fellowship. According to this same 
Epistle to the Galatians, which is the sole document 
that can be brought forward to support the theory 
of a schism in the apostolate, these false teachers 
used every effort to nullify the influence of Paul. 
They disputed his authority, and sought to place him 
in a position subordinate to that of the first witnesses 
of Christ. Gal. 11, 7, 8. Not content with insisting 
upon the observance of the law by those who were 


* Of περιτετμημένοι. Gal. vi, 13. 
+ Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeit., i, 16. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 305 


Jews by birth, they attempted to Jay the same yoke 
on the Gentile converts. They made circumcision 
and legal observances the essential and universal 
conditions of salvation. Gal. v, 2, 3; vi, 12. They 
thus repudiated the decisions of the Council at Jeru- 
salem; they placed themselves outside the Church 
of the Apostles ; they preached, in truth, “another 
Gospel.” ¢ It is not difficult to draw the line of dis- 
tinction between these false teachers and the Juda- 
izing Christians of Jerusalem. The latter, when they 
admitted with James, that Gentile converts could not 
be compelled to be circumcised, implied by that very 
concession that the rite of circumcision had lost its 
positive value, and that it was no longer a saving 
ordinance ; since the Gentile converts could not have 
been allowed to dispense with a practice really neces- 
sary to their entrance into the kingdom of God. 
Faith in the Lord Jesus was now the one absolute 
condition of conversion, as it had been declared by 
Peter in his Pentecostal sermon. Acts ui, 38. This 
would no longer be the case if circumcision was raised 
to the height of a universal and permanent obliga- 
tion. Christianity would be then only the comple- 
ment of Judaism. The Gospel would be overthrown 
or rather destroyed. Thus the false teachers of 
Galatia were innovators and schismatics. They suc- 
ceeded by guile in acquiring a dangerous ascendency 
in a young Church, in disseminating the malice of 
which their own hearts (Gal. v, 15) were full, and in 
leading timid Christians to seek circumcision in order 
to escape persecution and the reproach of the Cross. 
_Gal.vi, 12. But their successes were only momentary. 


* Eic ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον. Gal. 1, 6. 
20 


306 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


We have evidence, at the close of Paul’s career, 
that the Galatian Church had placed itself again 
under his influence. He writes to Timothy, in 
his second epistle, that he has sent Crescens, one 
of his companions, into Galatia, doubtless there to 
fulfill the same mission as Titus in Dalmatia, and 
Timothy himself at Ephesus. 2 Tim. iv, 10. Peter's 
epistle, which belongs to the same period, is ad- 
dressed to the Christians of Galatia, and of the 
countries round about. We may infer from the tone 
of that letter that the Churches to which it speaks 
are in a prosperous condition. Peter does not in any 
way reproach them, nor reason with them, as. he 
would have done if they had been under the influence 
of these false teachers. He sets forth the vital truths 
of the Gospel without comment, as confident of being 
understood. Persecution was imminent in Galatia ; 
the furnace was even then heated. 1 Pet. iv, 12. 
The Christians had already experienced its salutary 
effects, and the purifying fire had consumed the 
dross. They also bore in their body the marks of 
the Lord Jesus. Gal. vi, 17. Judaeo-Christianity, 
therefore, if it seemed for awhile to flourish among 
them, took noroot. Its influence, though critical, was 
but transitory. It still hovered in the air, however— 
a vague, floating spirit of evil—and the day would 
come when it would take the form of open heresy. 
We meet again with these false, Judaizing teachers 
in that Church which is certainly the most prosper- 
ous of those founded by St. Paul. Formed in cir- 
cumstances of difficulty, early tried by persecution, 
matured by protracted suffering, (Phil. i, 27, 28,) the 
Church of Philippi was distinguished by its cour- 


BOOK Ti.-——FIRST CENTURY. 307 


ageous fidelity and unwavering attachment to the 
Apostle. Of this attachment it gave him many 
proofs, sending to him again and again the gifts of 
its generosity. Phil. iv, 14-16. We gather, however, 
from the warning words of the Apostle, that a spirit 
of strife and vainglory had begun to show itself even 
at Philippi. Phil. ii, 2,3. Itis certain that some seeds 
of division and some roots of bitterness had found a 
place in that Church. Phil. iv, 2. The advocates of a 
Judaizing Christianity were there conspicuously in the 
minority, but they endeavored to balance the smallness 
of their numbers by the bitterness of their zeal. Paul 
speaks of them, therefore, with unusual severity. 
‘Beware of dogs,” he says to the Philippians; “ be- 
ware of evil workers ; beware of the false concision.” * 

The false teachers of Philippi united to their legal- 
ism a kind of immorality which went to the length 
of the grossest materialism, (Phil. ii, 18,) thus prov- 
ing that when religion is made to consist in forms 
and outward ceremonies it has no influence on the 
heart and life, and that bigotry is perfectly com- 
patible with impurity. They were not able to shake 
the authority of Paul at Philippi, and they were 
equally unsuccessful at Thessalonica. The Church 
founded in that city was one of the jewels in the 
crown of the great missionary. 2 Thess. i, 4. It was 
early distinguished for its piety, its charity, and its 
steadfastness under persecution. 1 Thess. ii, 6. We 
may, perhaps, attribute to the influence of Jewish 
notions, the false and exaggerated interpretation 
given by some of the Christians to the teaching of 
the Apostle. Some members of the Church of Thes- 


* Literally, “of mutilation”—ryv κατατομῆν. Phil. iii, 2. 


308 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN ‘CHURCH. 


salonica, excited by these etroneous views of evan- 
gelical prophecy, felt themselves raised above the 
normal conditions of ordinary life, and gave up their 
customary occupations, and even work of any kind, 
living, as they said, in daily expectation of the return 
ofthe Saviour. ‘Thess. iv; 1 2 Thess, 11,25 1, 40: 
This was the first manifestation of the millenarian 
doctrine, which became in the second century so 
widely diffused, and so strongly imbued with Juda- 
istic elements. 

Judzeo-Christianity did not fail to find its way into 
the great metropolis of the ancient world. It at- 
tempted to creep into the Church at Rome, and there 
carried on its intrigues and underhand practices. 
But it has no claim to the honor of having founded 
that important Church, and modeled it after its own 
image:* It is quite evident, from the Epistle to the 
Romans, that the majority of those whom Paul ad- 
dressed were Gentile converts. He writes to them 
as being of the number of those Gentiles to whom he 
was the special embassador. Rom. i, 6; xi, 13. He 
speaks in that letter of the Jewish people in a general 
manner, which gives no ground for supposing that 
many of them were to be among his readers. Rom. 
x, I. And, lastly, Roman names abound in the salu- 
tations with which the letter closes. Urbane, Apel- 
les, FHferodion, Rufus, Hermes, did not, we may be 
sure, belong to the synagogue. We do not assert 
that none of the Christians at Rome were of Jewish 
extraction. The Jewish colony in that city was a 
very considerable one; it had its separate quarter, 


* See Baur, work quoted, p. 59; Schwegler, work quoted, vol. i, 
Pp: τὸῶῦη: 


BOOK- II.—FIRSE CENTURY. 309 


and, in spite of the contempt thrown upon it, had 
gathered to itself many proselytes.* It is probable 
that at Rome, as elsewhere, the Gospel was first 
preached in the synagogues, and that it gained some 
adherents among the Jews, while it received a far 
more eager welcome among the Gentiles. It is not 
known who was the first missionary who proclaimed 
the name of Christ in the capital of the empire ; it is 
only proved, as we have seen, that it was not the 
Apostle Peter. The Church at Rome was founded, 
like that at Antioch, by the preaching of simple 
evangelists. It, at first, exercised no considerable 
influence, (though this statement is contradicted by 
Catholic writers,)~ but it largely increased during 
St. Paul’s stay in Rome. ' 

The terrible persecution raised against it by Nero 
shows how great had been its progress. It was not, 
however, free from divisions ; the fanatical, Judaizing 
Christians sought there, as elsewhere, to counterbal- 
ance the credit of their powerful adversary. They 
tried to add affliction to his bonds, (Phil. i, 16,) but 
they failed signally in their attempt, for we find the 
influence of Paul paramount and almost exclusive at 
Rome during an entire century. | 

The great battle between the Judaizers in the 
Church and the Apostle of the Gentiles was fought 
at Corinth. The atmosphere of that city was favora- 
ble to such a contest. These converted Greeks had 
brought into the Church the subtle and supple spirit 
of their race ; their old nature was but imperfectly 
subdued. Great in disputation, they loved to make 

* Josephus, ‘‘ Antiquities,” iii, 3. 

t See Abbé Cruice, “* Etude sur les Philosophoumena,” p. 238. 


310 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


the Gospel, as some of them had been wont to make 

philosophy, the subject of their dialectic skill. The 
Church of Corinth had received in large measure the 
gifts of the Holy Spirit, and especially the more brill- 
iant of those gifts, those which were most distinctly 
miraculous. It prided itself much on this fact, and 
was in that dangerous attitude of mind when there 
is a disposition rather to make use of truth to advance 
personal glory than to serve it with humility and 
fidelity. 1 Cor. iv, 18-20. We can understand what 
an influence would be at once acquired in sucha 
Church by the false teachers who had displayed so 
much malice and cunning in Galatia. They stirred 
up sharp contentions at Corinth; piety and charity 
grew cold, and the voice of God was almost drowned 
in the babel of discordant words. Serious practical 
evils were the consequence of this condition of things. 
The bond of brotherliness was broken by the spirit 
of envying and pride. The Christians at Corinth 
began to dispute about their secular interests with as 
much acrimony as about their religious views ; they 
went to law with one another, and carried their causes 
before heathen tribunals. 1 Cor. vi, 1. The recogni- 
tion of the equality of believers in the sight of God 
was lost as brotherly love declined. Worldly distinc- 
tions began to assert themselves, not only in the ordi- 
nary worship, as in those Churches so sharply repri- 
manded by James, but even in ‘the feasts specially 
designed to show forth the equality and unity of all 
Christians. The rich began to make a show of their 
abundance at the tables of the agape, as it were to 
mock, instead of to minister to, the wants of their 
needy brethren. 1 Cor. xi, 20-22. Lastly, in just 


BOGE: TE,.=--FIRSE CENTURY. 311 


rebuke of its pride, shameless scandals brought 
dishonor upon the Church of Corinth. The most 
unblushing vices of paganism were found, and even 
tolerated, in its midst. 1 Cor. v, I. 

All these evils were, in truth, the grievous results 
of that spirit of division which had poisoned at the 
spring the piety of the Corinthian Christians. From 
Paul's first epistle to them we gather that there were 
four parties in the Church—that of Paul, of Apollos, 
of Cephas, and of Christ. 1 Cor. i, 12. Between the 
two former the distinction was rather that of personal 
preference than of difference of doctrine. Apollos 
professed the same principles as Paul; he regarded 
Paul as his master, and nothing could be more unjust 
than to attribute to him the formation of a sect at 
Corinth. It is probable, that by his great eloquence 
and his extensive learning he may have given a pe- 
culiar charm to the exposition of the truth. The 
Epistle to the Hebrews shows us with what skill he 
was able to present it. He placed at the service of 
Christ that dialectic art, so fertile in ingenious alle- 
gorization, which was the glory of the Alexandrine 
school. He thus acquired a vast influence over a 
Church which was still far too keenly susceptible to 
the charms of human wisdom. Apollos made no con- 
cession to this their weakness ; he preached, no less 
than Paul, “ the foolishness of the cross,’ but he pre- 
sented it under a learned and philosophic form. Τί 
was this form which enraptured the Corinthians, not 
the doctrine which it enshrined. There was, there- 
fore, blameable extravagance in their professed en- 
thusiasm for Apollos, and this Paul points out with 
admirable delicacy, while he casts not the faintest 


312 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


reproach on the innocent object of their fanatic ardor. 
His penetrating glance fixes at once on the inordinate 
estimate of human eloquence, the perilous craving for 
mere intellectual gratification. 1 Cor. uy, I. 

Paul is no less severe, however, upon his own par- 
tisans, who were equally guilty of schism. Their at- 
tachment was to him rather than to the truth, and they 
were as passionate in their defense of his personal. 
claims as were his adversaries in their attack upon 
them. I Cor. iii, 4, 5. They had, moreover, drawn 
false deductions from his principles ; they had exag- 
gerated them in practice ; they had failed to unite, as 
Paul did, charity with fidelity ; and, in the pride of 
their intellectual superiority, had wounded the weak 
consciences of their brethren. The most serious 
charge against them was, that they had placed them- 
selves in open opposition to the decision of the Council 
at Jerusalem with reference to meats offered to idols ; 
they had thus refused to conform to the system of 
mutual concession which was gradually to effect the 
emancipation of the Church. By such conduct they 
showed a narrow and sectarian spirit. They carried 
a carnal mind into the defense of great principles and 
the support of a noble cause. With larger charity 
and greater humility they would have formed the 
true Church at Corinth, instead of adding another to 
the rival parties by which it was divided and dis- 
tracted. 

The party of Cephas or Peter had at its head the 
false, Judaizing teachers. They sheltered themselves 
very unfairly under the revered name of Peter; as 
the partisans of Apollos, without his own consent, 
made him their watchword. The Epistle to the Gala- 


BOOK U.—FIRST CENTURY. 313 


tians has already initiated us into the system pur- 
sued by these false teachers ; they set up an opposi- 
tion between St. Paul and the twelve Apostles, ac- 
crediting the latter with far higher authority. The 
party of Cephas, therefore, attempted at Corinth, as 
in Galatia, to deny Paul’s claims to apostleship. In 
this way his influence might be most surely under- 
mined, for if Paul’s authority were once brought into 
discredit, it would be easy to revive Jewish prejudices ; 
and Peter was not on the spot to silence those who 
spoke falsely in his name. The enemies of Paul left 
no means untried to detach the Corinthians from him. 
They appear to have been here more personal than else- 
where in their attacks, for his apology has reference 
rather to himself than to his doctrine ; it is plain that 
he was assailed on all sides at once. The false teach- 
ers had endeavored at first to bring his teaching into 
disfavor on account of its somewhat bald simplicity. 
They had even spoken scoffingly of his bodily infirmity 
and suffering. “ His letters,” say they, “are weighty 
and powerful, but his bodily presence weak, and his 
speech contemptible.” 2 Cor. x, 10. Not satisfied 
with calling his apostleship in question from a legal 
point of view, his detractors had contested it on the 
ground of Christian virtue, depreciating his mission- 
ary labors, (2 Cor. xi, 21—28,) and extorting from his 
humility the bold protestation: “I suppose I was not 
a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles.” 2 Cor. 
Kips: 

Paul names a fourth party, which he calls the party 
of Christ.* Some have regarded this as only a section 
of the party of Cephas, distinguished by a yet more 


*"Eyo δὲ Χριστοῦ. 1 Cor. i, 12. 


314 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


unmeasured zeal for Judaism.* But it is impossible 
to trace so fine a line of demarkation between two 
schools so closely allied. There is no sect which has 
not its moderate and its extravagant disciples ; and 
if all these gradations were to be distinguished by 
separate names, subdivisions might be multiplied 
indefinitely. Other theologians have regarded the 
party of Christ as an exclusively Gentile company, 
formed of converted Greeks, who endeavored to carry 
the speculations of philosophy into the Church, and 
who, scornfully rejecting apostolical authority, main- 
tained that they alone comprehended the teaching of 
Christ, and held their doctrine directly from him. + 
But this theory has no ground to rest upon ; the des- 
ignation, the party of Christ, points to a Hebrew ori- 
gin ; it would be hard to imagine a Hellenist school 
giving this theocratic title to the Lord. It seems to 
us that without having recourse to the third hypothe- 
sis, which is equally unsustained, that of a transcen- 
dental mysticism, laying claim to direct communica- 
tion with the Saviour £ by means of visions, the two 
former may be happily combined. 

The party of Christ is in truth of Jewish origin, 
but it belongs to the eclectic Judaism of the period, 
in which there was an infusion of Gentile elements, 
and which was more or less tinged with oriental 
dualism. It is well known that in these times of 
universal syncretism, a large number of Jews at 
Alexandria, in Judzea, and elsewhere, had come, to a 


* Schwegler, *‘ Nachapost. Zeit.,”’ i, 161. Baur, ‘* Das Christ. der 
drei erst Jahrh.,” 57, 58. Reuss, ‘‘ Geschichte des N. T.,”-p. 55. 

tT Neander,““Pilanz.,”? voles, p:.363. 

t De Wette, ‘‘Comment. in Corinth. Brief.”? Einleit., 3, 4. Schen- 
kel, ‘‘Inquisitio critica historica de Eccles. Corinth,” p. go. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 315 


very considerable extent, under the influence of for- 
eign ideas. We have already given abundant evi- 
dence of this, and shall find fresh corroborative proof 
in the study of the heresies of Colosse and Ephesus. 
Now Paul tells us that a section of the Church at 
Corinth had embraced the principles of a false spirit- 
uality on the subject of the resurrection of the body,* 
and inclined to positive asceticism with reference to 
marriage. I Cor. vu, I-5. These opinions were 
founded on a dualism more or less logical. These 
Christians could not be classified with the party of 
Paul or of Apollos, still less with that of Peter, for 
their views were in diametrical opposition to Phari- 
saic legalism. We are led, therefore, to regard them 
as that fourth party alluded to by the Apostle as the 
party of Christ. It had probably taken this sacred 
name to establish its superiority over all the rest ; per- 
haps some of its adherents boasted of being in direct 
communication with the Lord, or they may have 
taken hold of some detached portions of his teaching, 
misunderstood and wrested from their true significa- 
tion. Thus in this encounter of opposing parties in 
the Church of Corinth all forms of error came into 
contact and collision. Roots of bitterness, which 
were subsequently to bear fruits of death, had struck 
into this fertile soil, which, for all its refined and brill- 
iant culture, was as yet but imperfectly renovated 
by the Spirit of God. 

The letters of Paul to the Corinthians produced 
the happiest results. From the second it is evident 
that he had already regained the leadership in that 


* “ Tow say some among you that there is no resurrection of the 
dead?” 1 Cor. xv, 12-38. 


316 EARLY YEARS “OF: LHE-CHRISTANSCAUREH, 


Church, which owed him so large a debt of gratitude. 
His heroic disinterestedness, which led him to refuse 
all pecuniary support lest he should give the slight- 
est pretext to his calumniators; his words, now 
flashing with the fire of love, now falling with the 
sound of tears, now piercing like the sword of God; 
his sufferings, described by himself with such elo- 
quence of pathos; every thing, in short, touched 
upon and appealed to in these inimitable letters, won 
back to him the hearts of the Corinthians. Was it 
possible to resist entreaties such as these: “I write 
not these things to shame you, but as my beloved 
sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand 
instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers ; 
for in Christ Jesus have I begotten you through the 
Gospel.” 1 Cor.iv, 14,15. The party of Judaizers was 
vanquished at Corinth as at Philippi and in Galatia. 
We have thus reduced to its true value the asser- 
tion that the Church of the first century was divided 
into two almost equal sections, each with an Apostle 
at its head; and that to avoid the scandal of sucha 
contest pushed to its full and final issue, the two 
parties were compelled to seek an approach to recon- 
ciliation by a series of diplomatic combinations. 
Judzeo-Christianity was only: really powerful in the 
early period, before it came-to a knowledge of itself ; 
that is, before it had been confronted with Christi- 
anity in its breadth and comprehensiveness. After 
the Council at Jerusalem it was not upheld by any 
Apostle, for all admitted the abrogation of circum- 
cision in the case of Gentile converts. It may have 
succeeded in raising stormy dissensions in young 
Churches, which, in their inexperience, were sur- 


BOGE ἢ: ΞΘ CEN EURY: 317 


prised and beguiled ; but it was nowhere able to sus- 
tain a resistance to the arguments*of St. Paul. At 
the close of this period, it was already preparing to 
organize itself as an heretical sect apart from the 
Church. The history of the second century will 
clearly establish its complete defeat in the first. 


δ 11. Dualistic heresies in Crete, at Colosse, and at 
Liphesus. 


Judaizing heresy was not the only form of error 
which presented itself in the path of St. Paul. In 
the Churches of Crete, of Colosse, and of Ephesus 
he found himself confronted with the old oriental 
dualism so powerful at that period, not only because 
it contained the final utterance of the pagan systems 
of religion and philosophy, but also because it 
seemed to hold in reserve precious treasures of wis- 
dom, and to guard under the vail of its mysteries the 
last resource of humanity. We have elsewhere so 
fully described this form of dualism that we shall not 
now do more than exhibit the special aspect it as- 
sumes on its first contact with Christianity. The 
island of Crete was a very favorable sphere for the 
development of dualistic heresy, for Pythagorean 
ideas had there obtained much currency. Epimen- 
ides, the Cretan poet, quoted by St. Paul, had made 
them the theme of his muse. Ephesus had become, 
as we know, the metropolis of Asia Minor, and an 
important religious center for the confluence of East 
and West. Of Colosse, we have only to remember 
that it was a Phrygian city, in order to understand 
the early appearance of heresy in the Church which 
had been there founded by a disciple of Paul. Before 


318 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


tracing the history of the false doctrines indicated by 
the Apostle, we must recall the first-known attempt 
made to combine Christianity with thé theosophy of 
the East. We refer to the system of Simon Magus. 
The discovery of the “ Philosophoumena” has con- 
firmed the unanimous opinion of the “ Fathers,’ who 
regarded Simon as the first heretic. We have al- 
ready analyzed his strange system under its original 
form, as he had devised it before he became ac- 
quainted with the new religion. It only remains for 
us now to study it in its later aspect, while briefly 
recalling its fundamental principles. This explana- 
tion will help us better to understand the heresies of 
Colosse and of Ephesus, for they belong to the same 
current of ideas. . 

We have seen that the first principle of all things 
in this extraordinary system is an obscure and mys- 
terlous power, a sort of infinite potentiality.* This 
first principle is fire ; it is at first hidden and invisi- 
ble, purely potential, but it is destined to pass from 
the virtual to the actual, and to become a reality.} 
Simon compares it to a tree; the roots going down 
into the earth correspond to the hidden and potential 
fire ; the trunk, the branches, and the leaves, to the 
fire in manifestation.{ In the infinite potentiality are 
contained all the roots, all the germs of the world, 
and primarily the two great opposing principles which 
constitute dualism ; the male, active spiritual princi- 
ple, or the mind ; the feminine, receptive principle, or 

ἘΡΑπέραντον δὲ εἶναι δύναμιν ὁ Σίμων προσαγορεύει τῶν ὅλων THY 
apxynv. τς Philos.,” 163. 

1 Αλλὰ yap εἶναι τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς διπλῆν τινὰ THY φυσιν, καῖ τῆς 


διπλῆς ταύτης καλεὶ τὸ μέν τι κρυπτὸν, τὸ δὲ τι φανερόν. “Philos.,” 163. 
i ** Philos.” 64. 


BOOK  ῬΕΞΞ ΤΕ CENTURY. 319 


the idea.* The mind represents the active principle, 
the idea the passive principle. In passing from the 
potential to the actual, the szzzd@ becomes heaven, 
the zdea becomes earth. Creation is a necessary 
manifestation of the former principle ; by it, it passes 
from possibility to reality ; + if it was not thus real- 
ized it would remain in the state of the purely poten- 
tial, like geometry in the mind of the geometer, or 
grammar in the mind of the grammarian.t There is 
in every being a blessed and immortal germ which 
has been, which 1s,and which ts to be. It is a particle 
of that first principle, which was the potential energy, 
which is power and reality in the world, and which 
in its essential potentiality perpetually takes an in- 
finity of new forms. This first principle is the one 
force, diffused above and below, giving birth to itself, 
seeking, losing, recovering itself; it is its own mother, 
father, sister, daughter ; the one sole root of all things, 
the male and female principle.§ Man is an epitome 
of the world ; he is a perfect microcosm ; he contains 
the potential fire, and realizes it in his double element. 

It was impossible to give bolder expression to 


* Νοῦν καὶ éxivoav. Philos.,” 116. The mind is the active prin- 
ciple, the idea the passive principle. Simon counted six roots of 
things divided into couples: the mind and the idea, the voice and the 
name, conclusion and reflection. In passing from the potential to 
the actual they take other names, and we have thus three fresh cou- 
ples: heaven and earth, sun and moon, air and water. 

+ Τὸ πνεῦμα ἐὰν μὴ ἐξεικονισθῇ μετὰ τοῦ κοσμου ἀπολεῖται, δυνὰμει 
μεῖνον μὸνον καὶ μη ἐνεργείᾳ γενόμενον. ““ Philos.,” 167. , 

1 Ἑστὼς ἄνω, ἐν τῇ ἀγεννήτῳ δυνάμει, στὰς κάτω ἐν TH ῥωῇ τῶν 
ὑδάτων; ἐν εἰκονι γεννεθεὶς, στήσομενος ἄνω, παρὰ τὴν μακαρίαν ἀπέραν- 
τον δύναμιν ἐᾶν ἐξεικονισθῇ. ““ Philos.,” 171. 

δ΄ Αὐτῆς μήτηρ, ἁυτῆς πατὴρ, ἁυτῆς ἀδελφὴ ἁυτῆς σύζυγος ἀυτῆς 
θυγώτηρ. ““ Philos.,” 171. ᾿Αρσενόθηλυς δύναμις. * Philos.,” 173. 


320. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


pantheism. Simon Magus clothed these ideas in 
sacred symbols borrowed from the Old Testament. 
He endeavored to make his theories accord with the 
account of the creation. He saw in the six days of 
the creative work the six roots of the universe com- 
prised in the infinite potentiality. The seventh day 
represented the first principle when it found itself 
manifested in the universe. The heaven and the 
earth expressed the first duality of the mind and the 
idea.* The description of Paradise became in his 
view the allegorical history of the creation of man 
contained in the Pentateuch.t Thus we find in this 
father of Gnosticism that tendency of all the Gnostic 
heretics to interpret revelation as acosmogony. But 
Simon was not satisfied with distorting the meaning 
ot the Old Testament to sustain his system; he 
made the same misuse of the words of Christ. It 
appears that he had blended with his pantheism some 
ill-digested notions of the emanation theory. 

The transition from the virtual to the actual was 
not, it seems, effected without confusion ; after the 
mind by its union with the idea had given birth to 
the angels, these in jealousy took possession of their 
mother, and made her captive in the fetters of the 
body.t Kept a prisoner in the lower world, she is 


ἘΠΕ Philos.) 167. ὙΠ Philos.,””. 168, 169. 

t Here there is a gap in the ‘‘ Philosophoumena.’”’ There are 
merely these words: μετενσωματουμένην ὑπο TOV ἀγγέλων, (p. 174, I.) 
Irenzeus, whose sketch of the whole system is very incomplete, gives 
us a commentary on this phrase: ‘‘ Hunozam generare angelos et 
potestates a quibus et mundum hunce factum dixit. Posteaquam gen- 
eravit eos haec detenta est ab ipsis propter invidiam quoniam nollent 
progenies alterius cujusdam putariesse.’’ Irenzeus, ‘‘ Contr. Heres.,” 
I, c. xxiv. Compare Epiphanes, 1, 21. 


BOOK 11.--- ΕΑἸΚΒΤ CENTURY. 321 


said to have become personified as a woman of re- 
markable beauty, and reappears in history under va- 
rious names from time to time. Thus she took the 
features of the famous Helena, whose fatal beauty 
occasioned the Trojan war. We have seen that 
Simon pretended to recognize her in a courtezan of 
Tyre, whom he made his companion. He declared 
himself to be the incarnation of the rational principle, 
whose destiny it was to set her free.* He thus rep- 
resents the fall to be nothing else than materializa- 
tion, and redemption to consist in release from the 
bonds of the body. It does not appear, however, 
that Simon’s doctrine led his followers into asceticism. 
On the contrary, they allowed themselves the most 
unbridled license under pretext of celebrating the 
true eucharistic feast, and they sanctioned their in- 
famous proceedings under the name of perfect love.t+ 

Dualism does in fact thus lead to the two extremes 
of license and asceticism. Some of its adherents 
imagine they triumph over the material element by 
placing themselves beyond all restraint ; others seek 
to annihilate it by the severest mortification of the 
flesh. Simon Magus adopted the former method, and 
his disciples were guilty of still greater excesses in 
the same direction. He set himself forth as the great 
Deliverer, the true Christ. He said that he-had ap- 
peared as the Son in Judzea, as the Father in Sama- 
ria, and as the Holy Ghost among the nations ; ᾧ but 

* We have already opposed the notion that Simon was the incar- 
nation of the first principle. 

t Μακαρίζουσιν ἑαυτοὺς ἐπὶ τῇ ξένῃ μέξει, ταύτην εἶναι λέγοντες τὴν 
τελείαν ἀγάπην. ““ Philos.,” 175. 

1 “ῬΠΙΟΒ.,᾽ 175. Μ. Bunsen (“ Hippolytus,” i, 38, 39) supposes 


that Simon spoke in this passage not of himself but of Jesus Christ. 


21 


322 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


that, under these or other names, he always fulfilled 
the same mission, which was to set free the idea from 
the fetters of the body. With this design he took a 
form like the inferior powers, and submitted to seem- 
ing suffering.* The parable of the lost sheep repre- 
sented, according to Simon, his redeeming work. 
Did he not, like the good shepherd, seek out the un- 
fortunate Helena, the object of his compassion, who 
had strayed into the lower world like the sheep into 
the desert? He wrought her salvation by reveal- 
ing himself to her, and he was to restore her to that 
higher region from which she had fallen.¢ This un- 
fortunate Helena, the personification of the idea, held 
captive in the chains of nature, is found in every 
man, since man is a perfect microcosm, and contains 
in himself all the elements of the world. The work 
of enfranchisement is therefore to be carried on in 
every individual. Thus Simon promised salvation to 
all who should believe in him and call upon his name. 
It is easy to understand the importance of magic in a 
system in which it was the first essential to fight 
against the angels byswhom the world was created, 
and to vanquish the powers of the cosmogony. The 
moral aspect is thus completely sacrificed. Evil does 
not proceed from a perversion of the human will ; it 
results from angelic creation, and every man is what 


We cannot share this opinion, for evidently Simon sets himself forth 
as the deliverer of Helen, the saviour of the lost sheep. He then is 
himself the Christ ; his docetism allowed him to admit indefinitely 
changes of form and of name. 

* Δεδοκηκέναι πεπονθότα, ““ Philos.,” 175. 

+ Tattynv τὸ πρόβατον τὸ πεπλανημένον. ““ Philos.,” 174. 

1 Οὔτως τοῖς ανθρώποις σωτηρίαν παρέσχε δία τῆς ἰδίας επιγνώσεως͵ 
* Philos.’ = τ: 


BOOK IL—-FIRST CENTURY. 323 


he is by that creation ;* he is consequently under 
the yoke of fatality. Simon pretended to be alone 
capable of procuring deliverance by his doctrine and 
his sorceries.f 

We have no certain information as to the history 
of Simon Magus or of his school. We have already 
had occasion to refute the legendary assertion of his 
stay at Rome and of his contest with St. Peter. It 
appears to us probable that his disciples were gathered 
chiefly in Samaria and the surrounding countries.{ 
His system is clearly connected with the Phoenician 
superstitions, as they are made known to us in the 
“ Philosophoumena.” We have therefore reason for 
supposing that his influence had an effect, direct or 
indirect, on the formation of the heresies alluded to 
by St. Paul. 

These heresies, of which the Apostle carefully 
points out the various phases, all bear the same im- 
press of Judaism combined with dualism. In Crete, 
at Colosse, and at Ephesus, we find substantially the 
same ideas, the same principles, with this difference, 
that in Crete the false doctrines had not as yet effected 
the threatened entry into the Church, but were still 


* Ob φύσει κακὸς ἀλλὰ θέσει. “ Philos.,” 176. 

+ It is needful to show that there was a distinction between the 
system of Simon and the forms given to it by some of his disciples. 
For instance, the very marked opposition between the Old and the 
New Testament expressed in these words, ‘‘ The prophecies were in- 
spired by the angels, creators of the world,” (‘‘ Philos.,”’ 175,) is rather 
due to the disciples than to the master. In fact, Simon in many pas- 
sages makes free use of the Old Testament. Besides, this idea only 
acquired such precision at a much later period. In the first century 
dualism sought to shelter itself under the shadow of Judaism. 

t The fables of the ““ Clementines,”” which make Simon pass through 
the cities of Syria and Phoenicia, may rest upon local traditions. 


324 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


kept without,* while at Colosse and at Ephesus they 
had made shipwreck of the faith of many professing 
Christians.t| The future looked even more gloomy 
than the present, and the Apostle foresaw a terrible 
growth of these roots of bitterness. 2 Tim. il, ΓΞ οὶ 
But in Crete, as at Colosse and at Ephesus, the false 
teachers were converts from Judaism, and represented 
its ascetic and theosophic side.t This is very appar- 
ent from the various characteristics by which St. 
Paul makes us acquainted with them. They are of 
Jewish origin, and pretend to be deeply versed in the 
law.§ They are distinguished by their ostentatious 
austerities. They burden the Christians with ascetic 
restrictions, repeating perpetually, “ Touch not ; taste 
not ; handle not.” || They thus make a show of wis- 
dom in not sparing the body. Like the party of 
Christ at Corinth, they condemn marriage,§] and are 
led as a natural consequence of their principles to 
deny the resurrection of the body, and to maintain 


Ἐσὲ yap πολλοὶ... μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς. Titus i, το. 

Ἵ Τίνες περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν. 1 Tim. i, 193 Vi, 21. 

ἘΠ Compare Titus i, 14 and 1 Tim. iv, 7. See an excellent disser- 
tation on this point in Mangold’s pamphlet, ‘‘ Die Irrlehrer der Pas- 
toralbriefe,” Marburg, 1856. He well refutes Credner and Thiersch, 
who asserted that the heresies combated by St. Paul were manifold. 
Credner (‘‘ Einleit. in N. T.,”’ i, 348) counted four different heresies : 
first, two in Crete—one Judaizing, one derived from paganism ; he 
based this opinion on Titus i, 10, (μάλιστα οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς,) but this 
passage refers only to one single Jewish heresy ; second, two heresies 
at Ephesus—one already formed, one in process of formation ; (2 Tim. 
iii, 1, 2;) but Paul is speaking clearly of one and the same heresy 
in various stages. 

§ Νομοδιδάσκαλοι. τ Tim. i, 7. The heretics at Colosse are also 
Jews. 1 Cal ag re: 

| Col. 11, 21. Compare Titus i, 14. 

{| Κωλυόντων γαμεῖν. τ Tim. iv, 3. 


- 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 225 


that there is no resurrection but that of the soul re- 
newed by Christ.* 

This whole system was evidently based on a dual- 
istic philosophy which identified evil with matter. 
These heretics were not satisfied with carrying out 
dualism in practice ; they gave it formal expression, 
and endeavored to find a speculative basis for it ; they 
concerned themselves with fables and foolish ques- 
tions concerning the doctrine of angels. 1 Tim. i, 4; 
2 Tim. iv, 4; Col. ii, 18. We know already from the 
system of Simon Magus, that the doctrine of angels 
was connected with a theory of emanation as yet con- 
fused and chaotic. In these vain speculations we 
recognize that science, falsely so called, which the 
Apostle condemned. 1 Tim. vi, 20. These heretics 
then followed the example of Simon Magus in turning 
the sacred Scriptures to their own purposes, and 
wresting them into the confirmation of their peculiar 
tenets. They gave an allegorical interpretation to 
the historical portion of the Old Testament, and thus 
cast a sacred vail over their monstrous errors.f 


* Λέγοντες τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἤδη γεγονέναι. 2 Tim. 11, 18. 

+ This is the meaning we attach to the words “‘ endless genealogies.” 
1 Tim. i, 4. Some have supposed the reference to be to the gezealo- 
gies of the eons in the system of emanations ; but this would infer a 
system of Gnosticism much more advanced than that here described. 
Mangold shows that the word genealogy has never been taken in this 
sense in the Gnostic systems. He quotes, after Dzehne, a passage 
from Philo, which justifies the interpretation we have given. Philo, 
in fact, after dividing the Pentateuch into two parts—the first com- 
prising the laws and ordinances, the second the historical documents— 
makes under the latter head two further subdivisions: the historical, 
properly so called; and the genealogical portion: ’Eotiv οὖν τοῦ ἱσ- 
τορικοῦ, TO μὲν περὶ THC TOD κόσμου γενέσεως͵ TO δὲ γενεῶλογικόν" τοῦ δὲ 
γενεαλογικοῦ, τὸ μὲν περὶ κολάσεως ἀσεβῶν, TO δὲ αὖ περὶ τιμῆς δικαίων. 


326 EARLY YEARS: OF. ἘΠΕ CARISTIANSCHU RCE? 


The question now before us is to ascertain to what 
known sect these first heretics belonged. They have 
been represented as professing Gnosticism in a form 
already complete and systematized, in all points re- 
sembling that of the second century, and this hypoth- 
esis has been used as an argument against the authen- 
ticity of the Pastoral Epistles.* But the general feat- 
ures pointed out by the Apostle as characteristic of 
the false teachers at Ephesus, correspond rather to 
Gnosticism in its first elementary form, than in its 
full, systematic development as we meet with it in 
Valentinus and Marcion. It is evident, from the 
Epistle to the Colossians, that dualistic and ascetic 


“Of the genealogies one portion refers to the punishments of the 
wicked, the other to the rewards of the righteous.”’ Philo, ‘‘ De Vita 
- Contemplativa,” α. ο. θ ὃ 4. Thus the genealogies, according to him, 
were to show the punishment of the wicked and the recompense of 
the just. It is evident that they can only do this under an allegorical 
system of interpretation. Now, it is known that Philo found in the 
genealogies a complete psychology. The names represented to him 
the conditions of the soul, (τρόποι τὴς ψυχῆς.) Τί is easy to imagine 
what important results the party of Judaizing heretics might derive 
from the innumerable genealogies of the Old Testament. That which 
has decided us in favor of this explanation of Dzehne and Mangold is 
a passage in the ‘‘ Philosophoumena”’ not quoted by the latter, and 
which contains an exact exemplar of this mythical use of the genealo- 
gies on the part of those Ophite heretics, who may be regarded as the 
direct successors of the false teachers described in the pastoral epistles. 
We there read as follows: ‘‘ The Sethians (one of the numerous 
branches of the Ophites) say that Moses upholds their doctrine when 
he enumerates in Paradise, Adam, Eve, and the serpent, to the num- 
ber of three, and when he names Cain, Abel, and Seth, or again 
Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and lastly, when he speaks of the three 
patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Ὅταν λέγῃ τρεῖς πατριάρχας 
᾿Αβραάμ͵, Ἰσαάκ, ᾿Ιακώβ. ““ Philos.,” 143. 

* Baur, ‘‘Die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe.’’ Schwegler, ‘* Nacha- 
post. Zeit.,’’ ii, 142. See M. Reuss’s excellent reply, ‘‘ Geschichte der 
Heil.) Scht.,0N. 1 Pars: a: 


BOOK: ti.-— BPiks F CENTURY. 327 


ideas were agitated in the Churches of that period, 
as they were universally. This agitation was likely 
to assume a marked and decided character in cities 
like Colosse and Ephesus. A movement so impor- 
tant as Gnosticism, must have been, like all the great 
movements of the human mind, long in preparation. 
It existed as a tendency long before it was constituted 
as a school of philosophy. The system of Simon 
Magus proves the existence of the elements of Gnos- 
ticism in the first century. 

The heresies of Colosse and Ephesus ought not to 
be exclusively referred to the ascetic tendency of 
Judaism.* The influence of pagan ideas had, in our 
view, a large share in producing the false doctrines 
denounced in the epistles to Titus and to Timothy. 
Doubtless, the ascetic direction given to Judaism was 
due in part to this influence. The Jewish school of 
Alexandria was, a product of Platonism and of the 
religions of the East. The Essenes transplanted 
into the soil of Judzea the dualism of Philo, giving 
it a more practical character. They also held the 
eternal opposition between spirit and matter ; they 
regarded the body as the prison of the soul, the 
_ true cause of evil; and, imitating the Therapeu- 
tics of Alexandria, they professed the most extreme 
asceticism.f 

We are convinced, however, that the heretics of 
Colosse, of Ephesus, and of Crete, came under pagan 
influence not only through the medium of a Jewish 
sect, but that they also borrowed new elements from 
paganism, and arrived at a more decided dualism. 


* Josephus, “‘ Bell. Judaic,” ‘iy 8-II. 
+ This is Mangold’s hypothesis. 


328 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


They unquestionably drew their first conceptions 
from the doctrine of the Essenes, or from that of 
Philo, for they were of Jewish origin ; but they, sub- 
sequently, went far beyond this modified pantheism. 
We cannot regard them either as pure Essenes or as 
of the pure Alexandrine school. It is not proved 
that the former attempted any active propagandism 
beyond Judza, and the latter existed as a school only 
in Egypt. The fundamental ideas of both were de- 
rived from the moral atmosphere of the age ; it was 
the “power abroad in the air.” These ideas would 
take various forms of manifestation wherever they 
found a soil favorable to their growth; and what soil 
could be more favorable than that of the province of 
Phrygia, in the middle of which the Church of Co- 
losse was placed? The mysteries of Cybele or of the 
great goddess, of Atys, of Pan, of Bacchus, were in- 
spired by the dualistic pantheism, which led at the 
same time to the most infamous licentiousness and 
the most extravagant asceticism. St. Hippolytus 
tells us that the heresies of the commencement of 
the second century—that is to say, the heresies which 
immediately followed those opposed by St. Paul—had 
drawn largely from these myths and mysteries.* He 
declares, at the same time, that long before they came 
into the light they had been brooding in the shade. 
“This hydra,” he says, “ which casts forth so many 
blasphemies against Christ, has been crouching in 
the dark for many years.” + The system of Simon 


= Ζητοῦσι δὲ οὐκ ἀπὸ τῶν Τραφῶν, ἀλλὰ Kai τοῦτο ἀπὸ τῶν μυστικῶν. 
** Philos.,’”’ 98, 99, 117-110. 

Ὧν πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν ἔλαθεν ἡ κατὰ Χριστοῦ δυσφημία. ‘‘ Philos.,” 
123. 


BOOK, ΤΙ - ΡΤ CENTURY, 329 


Magus, which belongs to the same date, is strongly 
impregnated with elements borrowed from the pan- 
theism of the East. It appears to us, then, probable 
that the heretics of Colosse and of Ephesus brought 
together in hybrid union Jewish and pagan ideas. 
It is not possible to give an exact account of their 
system. It is enough for us to know that it led to 
ascetic practices, and was based upon a medley of 
idle fables and on emanatist principles, in order to 
recognize in it a sort of anticipation of Gnosticism. 
Against such false and vain speculations the Apostle 
sets the grand and powerful doctrine of Christianity, 
that between God and the world there is but one 
Mediator, the Eternal Son, who is the express image 
of the Divine Person, “ by whom and for whom were 
all things created.” Col. i, 15, 16. He points to the 
cross triumphing over all the malignant powers with 
which false science sought to fill up the gulf between 
earth and heaven. Col. ii,15. He is especially careful 
to show the dangerous effects of heresy on the Chris- 
tian life. He represents the false teachers as creep- 
ing into houses, leading captive the minds of “ silly 
women” laden with sins, and as pursuing self-inter- 
ested ends, seeking to satisfy at once their pride and 
their greed for filthy lucre. Titus i, I1. 

The latent immorality, ever characteristic of Gnos- 
ticism, thus betrayed itself from the very first. In 
this its earliest form there is nothing systematic, but 
it has already broad and well-marked features—its 
pretensions to profound speculations, which end in 
“old wives’ fables ;” its false science, which is ever 
teaching without leading to any true knowledge ; its 
wild theories concerning angels; its incongruous 


330 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


combination of asceticism and libertinism. It was, 
doubtless, checked by the severe reprobation of the 
Apostle ; but, like Judaeo-Christianity, it would re- 
cover from the blows thus leveled at it, would reunite 
its scattered elements, repudiate its Jewish origin, 
and, better organized and better armed, enter on a 
deadly warfare with the Church. 


BOOK I].—FIRST CENTURY. 33 


CHAPTER? V: 


CONSTITUTION OF ‘THE CHURCHES DURING THIS 
PERIOD.* 


SI. General Principles of Ecclesiastical Organization. 


HILE, during the first period of the apostolic 
age, the predominance of the miraculous pre- 
vents the Church from assuming a definitely organ- 
ized form, we are able, in this second period, to discern 
the essential features of its constitution. The first 
broad outline is shaded and filled up. The thought 
embodied in the existence of the Church finds fresh 
and fuller expression. Christians, while they were 
still held in the bonds of Jewish exclusiveness, did 
not clearly comprehend that they were called to form 
a religious society differing altogether from the ancient 
theocracy. They were conscious of a new and special 
relation established between those who had been bap- 
tized in the name of Christ ; but they regarded them- 
selves rather as the true Israel than as the Christian 
Church. As Christianity extended its conquests 
among the heathen, their ideas widened, and, as we 
have seen in the theology of St. Paul, the true con- 
* The principal work of reference on this subject is Rothe, “‘ Anfange 
der christlichen Kirche.’? See also Ritschl’s work, ‘‘ Altcatholische 
Kirche ;” and the various histories of the apostolic age already 
quoted. We refer the reader also to Bingham’s ““ Oxigines seu 
Antiquitates ecclesiasticze,’”’ Hale, 1724. Vitringa, “De Synagog, 
vetere.” Ignatius, ‘‘ Von Antiochien und seine Zeit.”? Sieben Zend- 
schreiben. Bunsen, Hamburg, 1847. 


332 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


ception of the Church, the idea of a willing people 
gathered out of the whole world, of a regenerated 
race formed anew in Christ Jesus, was one of the 
most precious results of the mission of the Apostles. 
The Church, no longer shut up within a single city, 
but spreading beyond the gates of Jerusalem far and 
wide over the Gentile world, could not any more be 
regarded as identified with any purely local or exter- 
nal conditions. The spiritual reality was disengaging 
itself from the material form, and through and beyond 
the visible Churches came the dawning recognition 
of that invisible Church, the abiding type and ideal 
of them all. 

It is this invisible Church which Paul beholds with 
the eye of faith when he speaks of the bride of Christ, 
without blemish and without spot, (Ephes. v, 23- 
27;) it alone possesses in perfection that unity of 
love, so often marred by failure and sin in the various 
visible Churches. Ephes. iv, 4, 5. The Apostle as- 
suredly knew only too well the unhappy contentions 
in those Churches ; he, who had probed their wounds 
with so unshrinking a hand, would not hold forth any 
one of them as the glorious, irreproachable Church 
of which he speaks to the Ephesian Christians. He, 
who so clearly saw and so strongly rebuked the evils 
in the Church of Corinth and that of Colosse, while, 
at the same time, he did not withhold from them the 
sacred name, evidently recognized the distinction be- 
tween the visible and the invisible Church. The in- 
visible Church formed, in his view, “the body of 
Christ, indissolubly united in all its parts, and drawing 
its nourishment from the divine head.” In Churches 
in which he found divisions and strife, he could not 


BOOK II.—-FIRST CENTURY. 333 


recognize this mystical body in its normal constitu- 
tion. When writing to the Church at Corinth in 
rebuke of its contentions, he says, “Is Christ di- 
vided ?”* Such a Church could not be to him the 
faithful image of that ideal society in which love is 
the bond of perfectness. He distinguished, therefore, 
the invisible Church from the particular Churches in 
which its characteristics were so imperfectly repro- 
duced. The former was to him the Church of Jesus 
Christ, the true exponent of his mind and will; it 
exists upon earth just in the measure in which true 
faith and charity exist. The invisible is the bright, 
celestial side of the Church visible. It follows that 
the invisible Church is found in various degrees in 
every particular Church, but it is not to be absolutely 
identified with any. 

According to these principles, so simple and so 
plain, it is obviously a grave error to regard the prim- 
itive Church as a vast hierarchical establishment, like 
the Church of the fourth century. It is no Mother 
Church—WMater Ecclesta—laying the yoke of its ex- 
ternal unity oneach individual Church. Such anidea 
is altogether alien to the apostolic age. ._The one in- 
visible Church is realized or embodied in the partic- 
ular Churches. These Churches form their own or- 
ganizations, on the same substantial basis indeed, but 
with notable differences in all secondary matters. 
They are united among themselves, but the bond 
thts formed is purely spiritual ; it is never a chain. 
Each of the Churches is a small republic, a society 
of believers, an association of Christians, which gov- 
erns itself without seeking direction or inspiration 


* Meuéptotat ὁ Χριστός. τ Cor. i, 13. 


334 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


from any of its sister Churches. Paul never appeals 
at Corinth, at Ephesus, or in Galatia, to the authority 
of the Church as a whole. The questions raised are 
decided fully and finally within each particular 
Church, and each is considered competent to its own 
absolute self-government, subject only to the sov- 
ereignty of truth. The conferences held at Jerusa- 
lem are no violation of this rule. It was necessary 
that the Apostles should understand each other on 
questions of such moment. Moreover, we have al- 
ready shown that the so-called Council did not issue 
any thing like positive decrees ; it confined itself to 
recommending a compromise which had no obliga- 
tory character. 

It is impossible to find in the whole of rie period 
any traces of a general organization of the Churches 
tending to external unity. There are no general and 
periodical assemblies ; more significant still, there is 
no center of unity. Those who regard Rome as 
having been such a center are guilty of a strange 
anachronism. We have seen, also, how little promi- 
nence really attaches in this period to the part of that 
Apostle who has been made the head of the pretended 
ecclesiastical monarchy. If the Churches had sought 
at this time, as subsequently they did, a religious 
center, they would unquestionably have chosen Jeru- 
salem, the glorious birthplace of Christianity. But 
the Church in that city, so far from exerting a wide 
influence on the development of Christian thought 
during the period of St. Paul, only followed afar off 
the movement led by the great Apostle. The 
Churches founded in the midst of paganism departed 
without scruple fromthe customs of Moses; they 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 335 


felt themselves under no constraint to preserve, for 
the sake of uniformity, the same form of Jewish wor- 
ship as was observed by the Christians at Jerusalem ; 
but these minor differences did not prevent the ex- 
istence of substantial oneness. The theologians, 
therefore, who assert that these differences took the 
form of actual opposition and declared hostility, are 
not less at fault than the advocates of the hierarchy. 
We have a touching proof of the unity prevailing 
among the Churches of Asia Minor and Greece and 
those of Palestine in the generous collections made 
“ΔΕ the urgent and repeated instance of Paul, even as 
far as Galatia and Corinth, for the poor brethren in 
Judzea. The Churches of Asia Minor, of Macedonia, 
and Achaia, sent messengers to Jerusalem to carry 
thither their offerings, and, with their gifts, the as- 
surance of their brotherly affection. Never was 
unity more real than in these times, when it rested 
on the perfect law of liberty. The harmony which 
reigned among the Apostles helped to maintain it. 
Peter writes to the Churches founded by St. Paul in 
Asia Minor, as Apollos, the disciple of Paul, writes 
to the Christians at Jerusalem. Thus we have in the 
first century a true Christianity based upon a common 
faith, but exercising no constraint but the constraint 
of love upon the individual Churches, each of which 
had its distinct and special characteristics. The 
fiction had not yet arisen of an impersonal Church, 
distinct from the various local Churches in combina- 
tion and from the free association of believers, di- 
vinely endowed with arbitrary power to rule the peo- 
ple of God, and established and built up by some 
other means than individual faith. The particular 


336 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Church or congregation united by a living link to all 
Christians throughout the world—such is the visible 
Church in the age of the Apostles. The grand and 
holy image of the invisible Church is discerned 
through the medium of the various local Churches, 
as the sun through intervening clouds; to behold it 
in its beauty, the soul must rise above the mists of 
sin and imperfection which cleave to the earthly em- 
bodiment of the heavenly idea. The particular 
Church or congregation is the only form of the visi- 
ble Church recognized by the Apostles.* 

Thus understood, the Church must be regarded 
simply as a community composed of Christians. Its 
gates were opened only to believers, or to those, at 
least, who professed the true faith. It could not pre- 
vent false Christians from creeping in surreptitiously, 
but, in principle, it owned as members only those 
who confessed with the mouth the Lord Jesus, and 
with the heart believed unto righteousness. We can- 
not doubt, as we read the epistles written by the 
Apostles to the various Churches, that they were ad- 
dressed, not to a mixed multitude, among whom in- 
difference and even unbelief found place side by side 
with piety and living faith, but to an association of 
Christians—-to a self-governing religious society. 
There is no recognition whatever of the existence in 
that society of two classes of members—the - con- 
verted and the unconverted. Serious evils might 
arise and compromise it ; hypocrites might be found 
among the faithful; but, as we read the epistles, we 
feel that, as a whole, these Churches were Christian 


* «Die Kirchenverfassung war wesentlich Gemeindeverfassung.” 
Bunsen, ‘‘ Hippolytus,”’ 11, 152. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 337 


societies. If it was otherwise, what mean the saluta- 
tions with which the letters commence? “To all 
that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.” 
“ Unto the Church of God which ‘is at Corinth, to 
them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be 
saints.” ‘To the saints which are at Ephesus, and 
{othe -faithial an, Christ,fesus.’. Rom: ἢ, 4» ΓΝ 

2; Eph.i, 1. The general tone of the epistles, the 
subjects they treat, the discussions they contain of 
the most delicate points of Christian practice, all ab- 
solutely forbid the supposition that such Churches 
were merely institutions for religious instruction, 
designed to impose the faith by authority upon men. 
They are missionary Churches, true-centers of evan- 
gelization, spreading light all around them. The 
idea of a mere school into which the unconverted 
were free to enter is excluded by such words as these: 
“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, 
“go to law before the unjust and not before the 
saints 9° «7.4 Cor. σι»; I, 

That conception of the Church which regards it as 
the community of believers arises naturally out of 
the general views of St. Paul on the relation of the 
two covenants. While the old economy was a the- 
ocracy associated with outward and material facts, 
the new is essentially spiritual. Before the cross 
distinctions of nationality or of birth are done away. 
“ There is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, but 
Christ is all and in all.” Col. iii, 11. In other words, 
the new birth or personal faith alone gives admission 
to the Church. Paul, by his energetic opposition to 
the false teachers, who desired to make circumcision 


compulsory on the Christians, repudiated altogether 
22 


338 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


the idea of an impersonal and traditional religion, de- 

pendent on outward circumstances and transmitted 
by birth. He did not reject circumcision mainly be- 
cause it was a form and ceremony belonging to Juda- 
ism; his protest was against the principle involved 
in it—that of a national and theocratic religion de- 
scending by right of inheritance from generation to 
generation. To inherit without accepting is of no 
avail in the Christian Church, while to accept with- 
out having inherited suffices for salvation. Ina word, 
personal adherence, that is, faith, is every thing. 

Not only did every Church in the apostolic age 
require a positive and personal act of adherence from 
all who sought a place among its members, but it 
was also enjoined to cast out of its midst any impure 
elements which might have crept into it ; and which, 
coming within the scope of the judgment of man, 
might be distinguished and expelled. “ Purge out the , 
old leaven,’ wrote the Apostle to the Corinthians, 
alluding to the notorious sinners who had insinuated 
themselves into the ranks of the Christians. * 


S II. Gifts and offices. 


The universal priesthood was fully and practically 
realized in the apostolic Churches.f Composed of 
sincere believers, they, in no degree, acknowledged 
the too common distinction between active and 
passive members. All the Christians were required 
to contribute of their zeal and piety to the general 


* 1 Cor. v, 7.. We shall recur to the subject of apostolical dis- 
cipline when we come to speak of the Lord’s Supper. 

t+ See Baur’s excellent observations. ‘‘ Geschichte der drei erst. 
Jahrh.,” pp. 248, 249. 


BOOK 1f.——FIRST* CENTURY. 339 


good. There are special offices, but these are very 
far from absorbing the whole activity of the Church. 
They are of less importance at this stage than subse- 
quently, when the gifts of the Holy Spirit have lost 
their miraculous character, and the supernatural is 
more closely blended with the natural in the elements 
of the Christian life. At this period organized forms 
are perpetually broken through by miraculous mani- 
festations, as the banks of a brimming river are over- 
flowed by its swelling, rushing tide. The line drawn 
between official service in the Church and the gifts 
bestowed on all believers is so indistinct that Paul 
places both in one category. “God hath set some 
in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, 
thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then cifts of 
healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” 
1 Cor. xii, 28. Let us endeavor to distinguish the 
variety of gifts in this community of service charac- 
teristic of the apostolic age. 

Christianity is the religion of grace. It teaches 
that every good and every perfect gift comes from 
God, who dispenses all by the same Spirit. James 
i, 17. The Holy Spirit not only renews the heart 
in conversion, but he also communicates to the be- 
liever the special aptitude he needs to enable him to 
glorify God. We err, however, if we imagine that 
there is any absolute incompatibility between the 
gifts of grace and the gifts of nature. The God of 
redemption is also the God of creation. Natural 
gifts are not annulled by the Holy Spirit; on the 
contrary, he accepts and appropriates them, while, at 
the same time, he purifies and communicates to them 
a heavenly virtue, by which they are made of true 


i 


340 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


service to the Church.* They then become spiritual 
gifts. The proportion of the supernatural element 
may vary in these gifts ; it may be more or less pre- 
dominant. Sometimes the natural element seems 
completely absorbed. ‘This was the case in the com- 
mencement of the apostolic era; but, as early as its 
second period, there was a sensible diminution of 
purely supernatural gifts; they were brought into 
subjection and subordination, while natural gifts, and 
aptitude sanctified by grace, acquired constantly in- 
creasing importance and prominence.t Taking these 
general principles as our starting point, it is easy to 
show the distinction between the divers gifts enumer- 
ated by St. Paul. 

The gift which is most distinctly miraculous is the 
eift of tongues.t It assumed a modified form in this 
second period of the apostolic age. Those who 
spoke in strange languages at Pentecost were under- 
stood by their hearers. This was no longer the case 
in the time of St. Paul. The gift of tongues seems 
to have been at that period an inarticulate language, 
a mysterious psalmody, the strange manifestation of 
that state of ecstacy, in which thought, lost in the 
ineffable, submerged, as it were, beneath a flood of 
divine influence, became unutterable. Such is the 
impression given by Paul’s description of the gift of 
tongues.§ “Things without life giving sound, 
whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction 
in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped 


* Διαιρέσεις δὲ χαρισμάτων eiai, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα. τ Cor. xii, 4. a 

1 Neanderns;**“Pilanz.,"4,io93 ern. 

} Tévn γλωσσῶν. 1 Cor. xii, 28. 

§ “‘He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but 
he that prophesieth edifieth the Church,” 


BOOK di:——FIRST .CENTURY. 341 


or harped?”’ τ Cor. xiv, 7. Abandoning themselves 
without restraint to religious ecstacy, some Christians 
might reach a state of ever-cumulating excitement, 
and take pleasure in a psychological condition not 
free from peril, and leading to an extravagant use of 
that gift of tongues which had no useful purpose in 
the edification of the Church. St. Paul, therefore, 
urges -that it be restrained within due limits. He 
desires that it be not indulged in, unless there be 
present in the assembly brethren capable of inter- 
preting the unknown tongues. This gift of interpre- 
tation was one of the manifestations of the gift of 
prophecy, which was also of a miraculous character, 
although it did not reduce the recipient to a state of 
entire passivity, as did the gift of tongues. The 
prophet was the organ of divine inspiration ; now he 
declared events in the future, (Acts xi, 28,) now he 
made manifest the secrets of the heart, (1 Cor. xiv, 25,) 
_and appointed brethren to their office in the Church ; 
(1 Tim. iv, 14 ;) again, he taught with a degree of 
power and efficiency which attested the special co- 
operation of the divine Spirit. The language of the 
prophet was not calm, connected, flowing, like the 
language of reflection. It did not bear the trace of 
meditation, or seem the labored effort of thought. It 
was impetuous and abrupt. These prophetic revela- 
tions were not to be received absolutely and without 
reason ; St. Paul desires that they be tested by the 
Church, for it was possible for suggestions of the nat- 
ural mind to be confounded with those of the Spirit. 
“Let the prophets speak,’ he says, “two or three, 
and let the others judge.* The gift of healing and 


* Of ἄλλοι διακρινέτωσαν. I Cor. xiv, 29. 


342° EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


of working miracles belong to the same category.* 
It was largely bestowed on the early Churches, not 
on the Apostles alone, but indiscriminately among 
all Christians. 

These peculiarly supernatural gifts abounded, for 
obvious reasons, in the early history of the Church— 
the period of creation and formation. They may re- 
appear, but in a subordinate degree, in times which 
have some analogy with the first century ; but these 
miraculous endowments must never be regarded as 
the necessary manifestations of the divine Spirit upon 
earth. The gifts which abide are not those of a spe- 
cially miraculous character; they are those which 
blend in beautiful harmony, nature, and grace, the hu- 
man element and the-divine—the very gifts by which 
the Apostles were themselves pre-eminently distin- 
guished. We place in-this second category the gift of 
teaching, (Rom. xii, 7,) and that of government.{ The 
former is applied sometimes to the practical side of 
Christianity, and then it is called the word of wisdom ; 
sometimes to the theoretical side, and then it is called 
the word of knowledge.t The gift of government 
must be accompanied by the gift of discernment of 
spirits ;§ for, at a period when the manifestations of 
the supernatural world were so frequent, it was of 
moment to discern between the true inspirations and 


* Χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων .. . ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων. 1 Cor. xii, 9, 10. 
The gift of faith, spoken of in 1 Cor. xii, 9, must be understood of 
this gift of miracles. It is evident that the word cannot bear in this 
passage its ordinary meaning. The faith which saves is not a special 
gift granted to some Christians ; it is needful for all. 

t Κυβερνήσεις. 1 Cor. xii, 28. 

1 Λόγος σοφίας, λόγος γνώσεῶς. 1 Cor. xii, 8. 

ὃ Διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, 1 Cor. xii, 10. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 343 


the false. The gift of teaching, like that of govern- 
ment, obviously implied certain natural aptitudes, and 
could not be exercised without the concurrence of 
moral and intellectual activity. | 
Such were the principal gifts bestowed on the 
Church. They preceded the various offices; it is 
utterly false to pretend that they depended in any 
way on those offices, and were manifested only within 
the limits of a fixed organization. The wind bloweth 
where it listeth, and the Spirit of God never surren- 
ders its sovereign freeness. The advocates of the 
hierarchy do not deny that the miraculous gifts were 
bestowed on the Christians generally ; but they as- 
sert, on behalf of the ecclesiastics, a monopoly of the 
gift of teaching, the use of which must, they maintain, 
be regulated by official and sovereign authority, or 
doctrinal anarchy will inevitably follow.* This dis- 
tinction, however, is wholly arbitrary. The syna- 
gogue already acknowledged, under certain limita- 
tions, the right of every pious Jew to teach.f It is 
not surprising that this right should have been ex- 
tended by St. Paul to all Christians, with the excep- 
tion of women, who were.to be silent in public wor- 
ship. “When ye come together,” he says, “ every 
one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath an in- 
terpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” ζ΄ 
This right was long acknowledged in the Church. 
We read in the eighth book of the “ Apostolical 


* This is Thiersch’s opinion. ‘‘ Kirche im Apost. Zeit.,” p. 154. 

+ “51 nec senex sit nec sapiens, constituant aliquem spectatze formze 
integritatisqua virum.”’ (‘‘If there be neither elder nor teacher, let 
a respectable and upright man speak.”) Vitringa, ‘‘ De Synag. 
vetere,”’ p. 705. 

1 Διδαχὴν ἔχει ἑρμηνείαν ἔχει. 1 Cor. xiv, 26-35. 


344 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Constitutions,” ‘‘ Let him who teaches, if he be a 
layman, be versed in the Word.” * It is impossible, 
then, to trace a clear line of demarkation between the 
sift of prophecy and that of teaching. The latter, 
like the former, belonged to the Church without dis- 
tinction of clergy. It remains an established fact 
that all believers had the right to teach in public 
worship.f All alike took some share in the govern- 
ment of the community. They were summoned, as 
we have seen, on the occasion of the conferences at 
Jerusalem, to take a part in important deliberations. 
The letters of the Apostles laid upon all the duty of 
caring for the great interests of the congregation. 
Discipline was an act of the community, not of the 
clergy. To the Corinthian Christians, Paul writes 
with reference to the man guilty of incest: “I verily, 
as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged 
already, as though I were present, concerning him 
that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my 
spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ t 
The entire Church is supposed to be assembled with 
the Apostle as a council of discipline, under the in- 
visible presidency of our Lord Jesus Christ. No 
distinction is made; ali the believers are called to- 
gether to pronounce, as a sovereign tribunal, the sen- 
tence of condemnation. The excommunication is 
spoken in their name. In the same manner, it is in 
their name that the repentant sinner is re-admitted 


*'O διδάσκων εἰ καὶ λαῖκος HR. ‘Const. Apost.,” viii, 35, I. 

t See Ritschl, “‘ Altcath. Kirche.,” p. 365. 

{ Συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος, σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ 
Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 1 Cor. v, 4. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 248 


> 
into the Church. The Church, as a body, pardons 
the wrong he did to it by bringing dishonor upon it, 
and permits him to return to the communion of the 
brethren. 2 Cor. ii, 6. The power of the keys thus 
belongs, according to St. Paul, to all Christians. 

The sacraments are equally far from being a mo- 
nopoly of the clergy. These principles were so deeply 
rooted in the Church that long after, at a time when 
it had undergone most important changes, they re- 
ceived striking testimony from the lips of St. Jerome. 
He says, “ The right of the laity to baptize has often 
been recognized in cases of necessity, for every one 
may give that which he has received.” * We read 
in the “ Commentaries” attributed to Ambrose, that 
“in the beginning all taught and all baptized on every 
opportunity.’ With reference to the Lord’s Sup- 
per, Paul attributes to all Christians the break- 
ing of the bread and the blessing of the cup. 
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not 
the communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread 
which we break, is it not the communion of the body 
of Christ?” From all this, it follows that the idea 
of a sarcedotal order was altogether foreign to the 
Churches founded by Paul.§ 

In those Churches, however, we can disc 
the commencement of various ecclesiastical o 


*<«¢(uod enim accepit quis, ita et dare potest.”” St. Jerome, % Contr. 
Luciferianos,”’ 4. 

+ ‘‘ Primum omnes docebant et omnes baptizabant quibuscumque 
diebus ut temporibus fuisset occasio.”’ 

1 Τὸ ποτήριον ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν. 1 Cor. x, 16. 
Harnack, though a Lutheran, supports this interpretation. (See his 
book, ““ Christengemeinde Gottesdienst,” p. 170. 

§ See Ritschl, ‘* Altcath. Kirche,” p. 378. 


346 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


These offices acquire gradually increasing impor- 


tance, without, however, assuming any thing of a 
priestly character. Paul introduced into the Churches 
gathered out of heathenism the same simple organi- 
zation, borrowed from the Jewish synagogues, which 
flourished in the Churches of Palestine. We find the 
same democratic constitution at Ephesus as at Jeru- 
salem. <A body of elders is nominated by the Church ; 
these are rather its representatives and delegates than 
its rulers. This is no organization of a Levitical 
caste ; to be convinced of this we need only read the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. Heb. vii, 26-28. Jesus 
Christ is there represented as the High Priest of the 
new covenant, living for evermore—the one Mediator 
between God and man. He transmits to none a 
priesthood which is perfect only because it is eternal. 
Those times foretold by the prophets had arrived, 
when the law was to be written in the hearts of all 
the faithful ; when each one, being placed in direct 
communication with Heaven, would no more need 
authoritative teaching from his brother man.* The 
ecclesiastical office, from this point of view, can be 
regarded only as a service, or ministering to the 
Church.t Those who are invested with it are not to 
be rulers over their brethren, but their servants. 
“We are your servants for Jesus’ sake,’ says St. 
Paul to the Corinthians ; showing by words so full 
of tender humility that, in his view, the apostolate 
bore no analogy to the ancient priesthood. 

Let us bring before our minds the very simple 


* Heb. viii, 10, 11. ‘I will put my laws into their mind... . 
And they shall not teach every man his neighbor.” 
t ‘Eavrove δὲ δούλους ὑμῶν διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν. 2 Cor. iv, 5; Rom. xii, 7. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 347 


mechanism of the institutions of a Church like that 
of Corinth or Ephesus. The ecclesiastical office 
already created elsewhere to meet actual necessities, 
and to maintain order in the midst of liberty, was 
there speedily called for. We find, in the epistles 
of Paul, valuable hints of the manner in which it 
sometimes originated. The Apostle speaks again 
and again of the Church in the house of a simple 
Ghristian. Rom: xvi, 5; (1. Cor xv kos Cok iver 5); 
Ebdemon. 2; *’Such:a Church, or fraction of a Church; 
was nothing else than a pious family circle extended, 
and becoming a religious center for those around. 
Many believers, converted through the influence of 
this Christian family, gathered around its hearth, and 
worshiped beneath its hospitable roof. The master 
of the house presided, and thus became naturally the 
elder pastor of the little congregation. If, in the 
same town, Christianity made many conquests, these 
small domestic congregations ultimately combined, ᾿ 
and, as a matter of course, when an important Church 
was formed, those elders and teachers were placed at 
its head, who, in their zeal, had voluntarily filled that 
office before being regularly appointed to it. Such 
cases must have been many in the apostolic age. 
The office grew out of the exercise of the pastoral 
gift which had preceded it, and which was still often 
used with perfect freedorn side by side with it. 
Episcopal pretensions have frequently been founded 
on the passages in Paul’s epistles where the word 
bishop occurs. But an attentive examination of the 
texts shows that the two words elder and bishop are 
used interchangeably, and that, in the language of 
Paul, they are synonymous, representing one and the 


348 EARLY YEARS ΘΕ THE CHRISTIANPECRURECH: 


same office.* He never mentions three degrees in 
the ecclesiastical hierarchy ; he recognizes two only— 
the office of elder or bishop and that of deacon.t It 
is equally clear that several bishops were found at 
once in the same Church, (see Phil. 3, 1 }- Acts xx, 17; 
James v, 14,) which is incompatible with the notion 
of there being one bishop superior to the elders. St. 
Peter, in his first epistle, carries this identification 
of the bishop with the elder so far as to charge the 
latter to use well the episcopal office, taking watchful 
oversight of the flock.t 
This identity of the office of bishop with that of 
elder is so very apparent in the New Testament that 
it was admitted by the whole ancient Church, even 
at the time of the rise of the episcopate properly so- 
called. “The elder ts identical with the bishop,” 
said St. Jerome, “and before parties had so multiplied 
under diabolical influence, the Churches were gov- 
rned by a council of elders.’§ The name of bishop 
was more frequently used in the Churches founded 
among the pagans, because the ancient Greeks were 

ἘΜετεκαλέσατο τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησιάς. Acts χχ, 17. Com- 
pare with verse 28 in same chapter: ‘Yud¢ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο 
ἐπισκόπους. See also Titus i, 5,7; 1 Tim. ili, 1, 8. On this point 
we refer to the admirable argument of Rothe. ‘‘ Anfiinge,” p. 174. 

fi Tim. ii, 1'and τὸ: 568 also Philos, 12vleor ποῖς Gyles. 
σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις. 

1 Πρεσβυτέρους παρακαλῶ... ποιμάνατε τὸ ποίμνιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
ἐπισκοποῦντες. I Peter ν, I, 2. 

§ ‘“‘Idem est ergo presbyter quam episcopus, et antequam diaboli 
instinctu studia in religione fuerent, communi presbyterorum consilio 
ecclesiz gubernabantur.” St. Jerome, ‘‘In Epist. Tit.,” vol. iv. We 
read in the ““ Ambrosiast,” ‘‘ Primum presbyteri episcopi appellaban- 
tur.”” Comp. Chrysostum, “ Homilia i, in Phil. i, 1. See also The- 
odoret, ‘*Interpretat. ad Phil. ili,” 445. ᾿Επισκόπους δὲ τοὺς πρεσ- 
βυτέρους καλεῖ. ** The two offices,’”’ he adds, ‘‘ had the same name.” 


‘BOOK ἶ1.---ΕἸΚ5Τ᾽ CENTURY. 349 


accustomed thus to designate the magistrates, whose 
functions in the State had some analogy with those 
of the elders in the Church, since it was their office 
to exercise vigilance over the interests of the republic.* 

In the failure of the attempt to establish the epis- 
copate upon the words of the Apostles, an effort has 
been made to uphold it, by giving an exaggerated 
significance to certain facts of an exceptional and 
transitory character in the primitive Church. Ref- 
erence is made to the mission of organizing the 
Churches committed by Paul to Titus and Timothy ; 
the part taken by James at Jerusalem is urged in con- 
firmation of the same theory. But these facts, rightly 
understood, ought to tell against hierarchical notions, 
instead of lending them any support. With reference 
first to Timothy and Titus, they bear no likeness 
whatever to bishops governing a diocese ; they are mis- 
sionaries, or, as Paul calls them, evangelists,f whose 
mission it is to direct the first steps of young and 
inexperienced Churches ; they exercise a truly apos- 
tolical power wherever that power is necessary. They 
derive their exceptional authority from an exceptional 
situation. They are no apostolical legates, invested 
with official dignity ; + they are simply the represent- 
atives of St. Paul, his friends and fellow-workers. § 


* «Those who were sent by the Athenians,”’ we read in the “" Scho- 
liast ” of Aristophanes, ‘‘ to exercise surveillance in the cities subject 
to their authority were called bishops and guardians.” ὧι παρ᾽ 
᾿Αθηναίων εἰς τὰς ὑπηκοους πόλεις επισκέψασθαι τὰ Tap’ ἑκάστοις © 
πεμπομενοι ἐπίσκοποι καὶ φύλακες ἐκαλοῦντο. Rothe, ‘* Anfange,”’ 
Ῥ-- 219. 

{Ἔργον ποίησον εὐαγγελιστοῦ. 2 Tim. iv, 5. Comp. with Eph. iv, 11. 

{ This is Thiersch’s view. 

§ Zuvepyoc. Rom. xvi, 21; 1 Thess. iii, 2; 2 Cor. vill, 23. 


350. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


They do the work of missionaries. They exercise 
over the young Churches the vigilance indispensable 
in the period of creation and formation, but, as we 
shall observe, they never infringe the inalienable 
rights of Christian liberty. They are no more bishops 
than were the Apostles. They are, like them, the 
founders of Churches, nothing more and nothing less. 
Their claim rests on the important duties undertaken 
by them in connection with those Churches, or rather 
on the great love they bear them. Their authority 
is entirely moral, and is vindicated by its effects ; it 
resolves itself into influence, The apostolic mission- 
ary cannot acquit himself faithfully of his task without 
using this authority ; he must needs water that which 
he has planted, and cultivate and cherish that which 
he has helped to create. He feels bound to uphold 
the frail plant, which has not yet had time to gather 
strength to sustain itself unsupported against the 
shock of storms. 

We have already stated our views of the ministry 
of James at Jerusalem. In spite of the assertions of 
the “ Fathers,” we maintain that it presents no analogy 
to the episcopate of subsequent ages.* He also is 
an apostle, and one of the most influential, though he 
can show no formal nomination to the office. He is 
an apostle, as Paul was, by right of his lofty piety and 
of the divine power manifested in him. His diocese 


* See Hegesippus in Eusebius, ii, 23, Ἰάκωβος Ἱεροσόλυμῶν ἐπίσκοπος. 
** Const. Apost.,”” Book VI, chap. xiv; Epiphan., ‘‘ Hzeres,”’ Ixxxvni, 
7. ‘* Jacobus, quiappellatur frater Domini, post passionem Domini, 
statim ab apostolis Hierosolymorum episcopus ordinatur.” August., 
‘Catal. script. eccles.”? All these testimonies are without weight, 
because we know that the ““ Fathers” transferred to the past the ec- 
clesiastical constitution of their own time. 


ΒΟΘΕ ΣΤ ΞΞΞΕΤΕ ΞΕ ΘΕ ΠΟΥ, rae be 


extends as far as his influence and his word can reach. 
Thus, a careful examination of facts destroys all the 
chimeras of an episcopal organization in the first 
century.* 

It is very difficult to determine precisely the func- 
tions of the elders or bishops. They formed a coun- 
cil | which occupied itself with the general interests 
of the Church ; its authority was limited, and always 
exercised with a practical recognition of the universal 
priesthood. They were, according to the beautiful 
figure borrowed from Christ himself, the shepherds of 
the flock.t The gift of teaching, freely used by all 
Christians, was not especially connected with the 
office of elders ; the only gift required in them was 
that of government. In his Epistle to the Ephesians 
Paul names the teachers after the pastors.§ There 
is no trace of two orders of elders hierarchically con- 
stituted ; it is probable, however, that it was soon 
found necessary to choose as elders men capable of 


* Bingham (‘‘ Origines,” 1, 69) regards the Apostles as the first 
bishops. The Catholic school falls into the same error, already re- 
futed by us. 

+ IpeoBurepiov. τ Tim. iv, 14. 

ft ‘‘ Feed the flock of God which is among you, not as being lords 
over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” 1 Peter v, 
2; 53; Acts ax, 28. - 

§ Ephes. iv, 11. Neander, ‘‘ Pflanz.,”’ i, 261. Calvin, and, follow- 
ing him, all the adherents of old Presbyterianism, recognize two orders 
of elders, some not teachers, and others whose office it is to teach, the 
latter holding a higher position than the former. This idea has no 
foundation in Scripture. Nowhere do we find such a line of demarka- 
tion between two orders of elders. The passage 1 Tim. v, 17 has no 
such bearing. It forms part of an epistle treating especially of false 
doctrines, and designed to set forth the great importance of the 
teaching of the truth. It contains no allusion to hierarchical orders. 
See Rothe, ‘‘ Anfange,” 224. 


352, EARLY YEARS, OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


teaching, since false doctrine was rife on every hand. 
St. Paul demands that the bishop hold fast the faithful 
word, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both 
to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.* Toward 
the end of this period, the office of elder or bishop 
shows a general tendency toward a more permanent 
character. Purely supernatural gifts decrease ; the 
exercise of the gift of government and that of teaching 
becomes all the more necessary. Doctrinal and moral 
anarchy threatens the Churches. It is obviously 
wise to give them at such a crisis greater fixedness 
of organization, and by a definite constitution, and a 
stronger government, to place them in the condition 
of a societyf capable of living and developing itself. 
We have no right, however, to suppose a substitution, 
at this period, of the monarchical for the democratic 
form of Church government ; there is no trace of any 
such change. There is one single allusion to the 
ruling of assemblies, (Rom. xii, 28,) but it is too vague 
to sustain the inference that one of the elders pre- 
sided permanently over the Council of the Church. 
Perhaps the presidency was taken by all the elders 
in turn. As the Churches increased in importance, 
and made larger claims upon the time of the pastors, 
it became needful to provide in part for their mainte- 
nance, that they might be able to attend, without dis- 
traction, on duties which grew daily wider and more 
weighty. St. Paul frequently insists on the duty of 

* Titus i, 9; 1 Tim. ili, 2. Acdaxtixéc. 

+ Comp. | Hebrews xiii, 17. See Bunsen, ‘‘Ignatius und seine 
Zeit,”’ p.-129. M. Reuss shows very clearly that the ecclesiastical 
constitution described in the pastoral epistles is not so complicated as” 


has been asserted, with a view to deny their authority. It is in har- 
mony with all we know of the apostolic age. 


BOOK Ai--——FIRST CENTURY. 353 


the Churches to contribute liberally to the support 
of thee elders ‘or ‘bishops; τ ΓΤ ΣΕ; ἘΞ: Τ4; 
1 Tim. v, 17. We see, however, no reason for sup- 
posing that these entirely gave up working with their 
own hands ; they did not, at any rate, feel themselves 
bound to do so by any scruple of conscience, for the 
distinction between the sacred and the profane found 
no place in the lives of those who did all in the name 
of the Lord Jesus, and who had before their eyes the 
example of Paul, the tentmaker. The contributions 
of the Churches were perfectly free, no rule or 
measure of giving was laid down; the care of the 
poor was regarded as a more pressing claim than the 
maintenance of the pastors. The elder or bishop was 
under no more obligation to surrender family ties than 
any private Christian. Paul says distinctly that an 
apostle might be married, and might take his wife 
with him on his missionary journeys. The counsels 
of moderate asceticism which he gives to the Corinth- 
ians are intended for all the members of the Church 
without distinction. The bishop is to be the ensam- 
ple of the flock, and is to keep himself with peculiar 
care from those immoral relations so common in the 
heathen world. Let him be the husband of one 
wife ; let him show what is true Christian marriage ; 
let him guide his family with firmness and discretion ; 
he will then find in his own home a valuable school 
for the government of the Church.* 


*Tt is universally admitted that Peter was married. 1 Cor. ix, 5. 
Eusebius, following Clement of Alexandria, asserts that it was so. 
Πέτρος μὲν yap καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποίησαντο. Eusebius, “‘ Hist. 
_Eccles.,” iii, 30. In spite of the opinion of several distinguished 
theologians, Reuss, among others, we cannot admit positively that 


23 


354 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Next to the office of elders, we find, in all the 
Churches founded by St. Paul, the office of deacons. 
This carries us back to the appointment of the seven 
deacons at Jerusalem ; but, like the whole of the 
ecclesiastical organization, it assumed, at this period, 
a more decided character. It received its proper 
name; it was called the diaconate.* Those who 
were intrusted with it do not seem to have taken 
part in the missionary work of the Apostles as directly 
as the first deacons, among whom were Stephen and 
Philip. They devoted themselves more exclusively 
to the care of the poor and the sick, and sought to 
exercise that beautiful gift of helping which St. Paul 
mentions in his Epistle to the Corinthians., They 
were the representatives of the charity of the Church 
to its suffering and afflicted members. We know 
that the deacons at Jerusalem were chosen to serve 
tables. In the second period of the apostolic age 
there were no common feasts, except the agape, 
which were accompanied by the celebration of the 
Lord’s Supper. The deacons were charged with all 
that related to this part of Christian worship ; with 
their office of mercy was associated the care of all the 
outward details of public service. 


the words ‘‘ husband of one wife,” μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, (τ Tim. iii, 2,) 
contain a prohibition of second marriages. The exhortation of the 
Apostle to perfect purity of life was always seasonable in Churches 
encompassed with heathen corruption, and some members of which 
might have continued in illicit relations which were hard to break. 
The condition imposed on widows who would be deaconesses not to 
haye been twice married, (1 Tim. v, 9,) prevents us, however, rejecting 
peremptorily the sense given by the whole of the ancient Church to 
the passage. 1 Tim. 11}, 2. 

* Rom. xii, 7. Acaxovig. Phil. 1, 1. 

J ’AvtiAjperc. 1 Cor. xii, 28. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 355 


The Churches of the first century also created an | 5 
office for women, in order to employ for the good of |" 
the Church the special gifts bestowed by God upon { ~ 
them. What office could have been better suited to 
them than the diaconate, the merciful ministry of 
succor and consolation? It is difficult to ascertain 
exactly what these deaconesses of the primitive 
Church were. Rom. xvi,1. They had, no doubt, their 
part in the distribution of alms, and in the visiting 
of the sick; doubtless, they also assisted in the 

arrangements for the agape, and lent their aid where- 
ever it was required by the deacons in matters relating 
to public worship. We know that the deaconesses 
of the second century were employed as helpers at 
the baptism of women.* This custom, so natural 
and so becoming, must have been introduced into the 
Church in the first century. The widows, above 
sixty years of age, whose names were in the Church 
books, and of whom Paul speaks in his first Epistle 
to Timothy, were probably deaconesses.t It would 
be difficult to understand all the conditions required 
of them in that passage if nothing more than ordinary 
membership was in view. On the other hand, it is 
perfectly in harmony with the spirit of the apostolic 
Church to give employment to the activity of all its 
members, and to establish a holy relation between 
the generous gifts bestowed upon poverty and the 
valuable services which, in return, even poverty can 

*“¢Constit. Apostol.,’’ iii, 16. 

+ Schaff, 534; Rothe, ‘“Anfange,” p. 253. In the ‘ Apostolical 
Constitutions,” (iii, 1,) widows are raised to the rank of elders, 
mpeoBuridec. This is evidently an innovation of the second century. 


The prohibition of second marriages to the deaconesses is an ascetic 
rule which gives slight cause for surprise. 


356 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


render to the Church. The widow was far better 
adapted than the unmarried woman for. the office of 
deaconess, for she had experience of human life ; she 
knew its great sorrows, and her position gave her a 
special fitness for administering consolation. 

From whatever point of view we regard it, the ec- 
clesiastical office appears to us always as a ministry, 
as the servicé of the Church, not as a priesthood. 
It has an altogether different origin, it is bestowed 
by popular election, and thus preserves its repre- 
sentative character. This was the case (as we have 
seen) with the very first office which arose out of the 
apostolate. The seven deacons of the upper cham- 
ber were chosen by the Church at Jerusalem. 
“Choose you out seven men,’ such is the language 
of St. Peter, and it sanctions the abiding privilege of 
the Church.* The nature of the office of elder also 
implied its being elective. The charge given by St. 
Paul to Timothy and Titus to appoint elders} contains 
no contradiction to this rule, for it is obvious that in 
a young and inexperienced Church the influence of 
the Apostle or of his representative would naturally 
preponderate. This influence, however, never as- 
sumed the form of despotic authority, and Luke 
shows us how it was exercised in harmony with the 
elective voice of the Church, when he tells us that 
Paul and Barnabas caused elders to be chosen in all 
the Churches.{ The Apostle presided over the elec- 

* -᾿πισκέψασθε. Acts vi, 3. 

+ Ἵνα καταστήσῃς πρεσβυτέρους. Titus 1, 5; 1 Timothy ii, 1. 

t Χειροτονήσαντες δὲ αὐτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους Kat’ ἐκκλησίαν. Acts xiv, 
23. We see (2 Cor. vill, 18-24) that the member of the Corinthian 


Church, intrusted to bear the offerings of the brethren into Palestine, 
was chosen by them. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 357 


tion but did not suppress it. It is further certain 
that this right of election was preserved inviolate dur- 
ing more than two centuries. The Coptic Constitu- 
tion of the Church of Alexandria witnesses to the 
continuance of the right of election into the middle of 
the second century.* Now, as it is incontestable 
that the second century did not originate the right, 
its tendency being on the contrary to weaken and 
depreciate it, it follows that it must be traced back to 
the first century, and is of apostolical institution. 
The laying on of hands which was conferred on 
the deacons, elders, and evangelists, had not at all 
the character of ordination.t It was not used exclu- 
sively for the investiture of office in the Church. 
Christ laid his hands on the little children brought to 
him that he might bless them, (Matt. xix, 15,) and 
on the sick whom he was about to heal. Luke 
xiii, 13. The laying on of hands was regarded 
as a solemn benediction ; coincidently with it there 
was sometimes the communication of the super- 
natural gifts peculiar to the apostolic age.t It was 
subsequently conferred in the ordinance of Baptism, 
in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and on 
the occasion of the restoration to the Church of those 


5 Ἐπίσκοπος χειροτονείσθω ὑπὸ παντὸς τοῦ λαοὺ εκλελεγμενός. 
**Constit. Copt.,” canon ii, 31. 

+ See Ritschl, ‘‘ Altcath. Kirche., 395. 

1 This is the explanation of the famous passage 1 Timothy iv, 14, 
in which these supernatural gifts are referred to. Timothy received 
them in fulfillment of a prophetic revelation, like that which led to 
the dedication of Paul and Barnabas by the laying on of hands at 
Antioch. Acts xiii, 2, 3. Wemust not forget that Timothy had been 
temporarily invested with the office of an evangelist. Rothe, 
“ Anfange,”’ 161. 


358 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


who had been excommunicate.* . It was always ac- 
companied with prayer.t St Augustine goes so far 
as to say, “ What is the laying on of hands if not 
praying overa man?” Prayer was then the essen- 
tial act. “The neophytes,’ says Cyprian, § “receive 
the Holy Ghost through our prayer, and the laying 
on of hands.” The latter had only a symbolic sig- 
nificance like baptism itself. It represented the 
grace communicated through prayer, and as all 
Christians stand in need of that grace, it was con- 
ferred on all. Nay, more. Prayer cannot, in any 
point of view, be regarded as a clerical act ; it is the 
expression of the Christian feeling of the whole as- 
sembly ; it follows that the laying on of hands could 
no more have a sacerdotal character than the prayer 
which constituted its essential virtue. It was be- 
stowed in the name of the Church. Tertullian ad- 
mitted that laymen had a right to baptize ; they had, 
then, an equal right to perform the laying on of hands. 
We do not deny, however, that the laying on of hands 
had a special application when received by the dea- 
cons or elders. It was the solemn sign of their en- 
try upon office, according to a custom of the syna- 
gogue, in the case of new rabbis.|| But between the 

* «* Horessi de lavacro de hinc manus imponitur per benedictionem 
advocans Spiritum Sanctum.” Tertull., ‘‘ De Baptismo,” 7, ὃ; Cyp- 
rian, ‘* pists;  ἸΣΣ ΣΙ; 2. 

t Acts vi, 6. Kat προσευξάμενοι ἐπέθηκαν αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας. This 
first laying on of hands is the type of all the rest. 

1 ‘Quid est aliud manuum impositio, quam oratio?’’ Aug., ‘‘De 
Baptismo,”’ iii, 49. 

§ “Per nostram orationem ac manus impositionem Spiritum 
Sanctum consequantur.’”’ Cyprian, ‘‘ Epist.,” lxxxiii, 9. 


| ‘‘ Qrdinatio autem non tantum fit αι sed etiam sermone solo, 
dicendo, ego te promoveo.” Vitringa, ‘‘ De Synag. vetere,” p. 838. 


BOOK. II.—FIRST CENTURY. 359 


imposition of hands in the synagogue and the same 
ceremonial in the church there was as wide a differ- 
ence as between the two institutions themselves. It 
was, in truth, the prayer of the Church which gave 
value to the outward act; the Church thus took an 
active and direct part in the consecration of the man 
who was to be its minister and representative. It 
appears, also, to have been customary, from the times 
of the Apostles, for the individual thus set apart to 
make an explicit profession of his faith before the 
Church, which had a right to know with exactness 
the doctrine of those for whom, as its delegates, it 
was responsible. 1 Tim. vi, 12. The outward act 
was so far from being regarded as conferring a sacred 
and unalterable character, that the same man might 
receive the laying on of hands on several occasions.* 
This unquestionable fact sets aside any superstitious 
notion with reference to it. 

In a word, therefore, ecclesiastical offices did not 
constitute in this second period, any more than in the 
first, a new order. of priesthood. They were not di- 
rectly and authoritatively instituted by God, but were 
created one by one as the necessity for them arose 
in the Church. They are not, like the ancient priest- 
hood, of immediate divine appointment, but they 
proceed from divine inspiration, and are according to 
the will of God. We must not, however, allow our- 
selves to imagine that the Churches of the apostolic 
age, though of so democratic an organization, suf- 
fered their liberty to degenerate into license. Re- 
vealed truth exerted a holy authority over them. 


* Acts xili, 3. Paul and Barnabas had long been exercising their 
ministry in the Church when they received this laying on of hands. 


360 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Paul uses the bold and energetic language of an em- 
bassador of Jesus Christ speaking in the name of 
truth. He does not impose that truth; if the 
Churches reject it, there are no means to constrain 
to its reception and to obedience. But he declares 
that in rejecting the doctrine they reject not the 
messenger but the God who sent him; and he 
proves it. He desires also that this truth, once ac- 
cepted in the Churches, should continue to be to 
them an infallible test and touchstone for heresy. 
If in the Christianity of the first century there is no 
organized external authority, there is nevertheless an 
authority which is effectual. We are quite free to 
admit, also, that while each Church has its own dis- 
tinctive life and character, there is nothing in the 
primitive ecclesiastical organization adverse to an 
ulterior federation among the Churches, and a syn- 
odal government, provided only that the liberties of 
the individual assemblies be left intact. We have 
simply shown that as a matter of fact such a federal 
government did not exist in the first century. But 
the Church has the right—and sometimes the right 
becomes a duty—to modify its organization in course 
of time, and to depart in more than one point of de- 
tail from the type of the apostolic Churches, subject 
only to this condition—that it remains faithful to the 
general principles of their constitution; for those 
principles are unchangeable, and rest upon eternal 
truths. | 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 361 


CHAPTER VE 


WORSHIP. AND: THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 


§ I. Christian Worship during this Period.* 


HILE the Christian converts from Judaism 

were continually in the temple, and observed 
all the rites of the religion of their fathers, the con- 
verted Gentiles held themselves free from any cere- 
monial law. In their churches, therefore, we find the 
true worship of the new covenant first established. 
The disciples did not comprehend immediately after 
the Pentecostal effusion of the Holy Spirit that Chris- 
tianity was a new creation. They supposed that the 
true worship—public and solemn worship—was still 
to be celebrated in the temple at Jerusalem, and their 
adoration in the upper chamber was of a secret and 
spiritual nature. The case was altogether different 
in the Churches founded by St. Paul. Their wor- 
ship was completely distinct from the Jewish. There 
is no reason to conclude that it was less spiritual 
than that presented in the earlier days of the Church, 
or less spontaneous because it was more carefully 
regulated. We must remember that the adoration 
offered in the upper chamber had more the character 


* Vitringa, ‘‘De Synagoga vetere.” Bingham, ‘‘ Origines Eccle- 
sie ;’? Augusti, “‘ Handbuch der Christlichen Archzologie,” (1836 ;) 
Harnack, ‘‘ Christliche Gemeinde Goltesdienst,” (Erlangen, 1854 ;) 
Guericke, “‘ Archzol.” (1847.) We need not enumerate again the 
works on the apostolic age already referred to. 


362 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


of family worship than of the worship of a Church, 
and that associated with it was the assiduous attend- 
ance of the Christians in the temple. The worship 
of the Gentile converts, on the contrary, was their 
public worship ; it had, therefore, a less private char- 
acter, and more solemnity of form. Its forms, how- 
ever, are very simple, and significant of the great 
emancipation wrought by St. Paul ; they are nothing 
more than the orderly and fitting expression of the 
ardent piety of the believers. The true idea of wor- 
ship in spirit and in truth characterizes them all, and 
is set forth in them with incomparable clearness and 
beauty. 

The-worship of the old covenant could not fail to 
be more or less materialized by its association with 
outward conditions. It was confined to the walls of 
the sanctuary ; it set apart times and seasons ; the 
priestly tribe alone had a right to approach the altar. 
All these restrictions had one common cause—the 
separation still existing between guilty man and his 
offended God. Hence the necessity of sacrifices, 
which embodied the acknowledgment of guilt, while 
they contained the prophecy of future reconciliation. 
The new covenant, which has for its basis the great 
fact of a finished salvation, at once substitutes for those 
sacrifices offered daily the sacrifice of Christ once of- 
fered for sin,* and abolishes the peculiar priesthood 
of a class in favor of the eternal priesthood of Christ, 
communicated by faith to all believers. In the 
Church there is no altar, no sacrifice, no priest. To 


* Novi δὲ ἄπαξ. Heb. ix, 26. 
+ ’ArapéBatov ἔχει τὴν ἱερωσύνην. ““ But this man, because he con- 
tinueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Heb. vii, 24. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 363 


the material sacrifice has succeeded the reasonable 
sacrifice of the heart and will, in which every Chris- 
tian is at once priest and victim.* 

All the institutions which were designed to remind 
man of his state of condemnation prior to redemption 
are alike abolished. There is no longer any privi- 
lege attaching to certain consecrated places and con- 
secrated persons. The Christian Church has no tem- 
ple in the true sense of the word, or rather, it is itself 
a spiritual temple, built up of living stones, and 
founded upon Christ.f Its worship has no other de- 
sign than the edification of this temple, or its consol- 
idation by the increase of faith and love.t Thus re- 
ligious service is held in private houses, as in the case 
of Mary, the mother of Mark, at Jerusalem, of Lydia 
at Philippi, of Jason at Thessalonica. Acts xii, 12 ; 
xvi, 40; xvil, 7. In the same manner worship is cel- 
ebrated under the roof of Justus at Corinth, and of 
Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus. Acts xviii, 7; 1 Cor. 
xvi, 19. In large cities, where there are many Chris- 
tians, the places of meeting rapidly multiply.§ There 
is nothing to lead us to infer that the houses in which 
worship was thus celebrated ceased to be used for 
other purposes. The name of Church was not given 
to-a sacred edifice, but to the assembly of believers 


# ¢¢ A living sacrifice, a reasonable service.’’ Rom. xii, 1; xv, 163 
Thelen τ᾿ 

t’Ev ᾧ kat ὑμεῖς συνοικοδομεῖσθε εἰς κατοικητήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν 
IIvetuate. Eph. ii, 20-22; 1 Cor. iil, 16; 2 Cor. vi, 16. ‘* Whose 
house are we.” Ov οἶκός ἐσμεν ἡμεῖς. Heb. iii, 6. 

1 ‘‘Let all things be done unto edifying.” —Ilavra πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν 
γινέσθω. ς : 

§ Ἠκελεσία kar’ oikov. Rom. xvi, 4, 5, 14, 153; Col. iv, 15; 
Philemon 2. 


364 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN. CHURCH. 


gathered within it.* “The Church itself,” says an 
old writer, “ or the assembly of the faithful, was the 
house of God.” 

The rapid increase of the Church soon rendered 
these private houses inadequate for the purposes of 
worship. At Ephesus Paul taught ina public school. 
James points out in his epistle abuses which could 
only have occurred in large assemblies, like those of 
the Jewish synagogues.t To the family gathering 
succeeded the gathering as a Church, to which all 
ranks of society furnished their contingent. The 
rich and the poor met together, and pride and inso- 
lence had frequent opportunities of manifesting them- 
selves. But the worship acquired no new character 
of sacredness by being transferred to a more spacious 
building. It was only on the ruins of the spiritual 
that the material temple was subsequently reared. § 

The primitive Church recognizes no more distinc- 
tion between days than between places. The entire 
life has become the calm and earnest celebration of 
redemption ; || its simplest acts are raised by the 

* 1 Cor. xi, 18-22; xiv, 34. Bingham lays stress on these passages 
as establishing the existence of sanctuaries, properly so called, in the 
first century, (“‘ Orig.,”’ iii, 143 ;) but he forgets Christ’s positive state- 
ment to the woman of Samaria as to the abolition of all holy places. 

+ “‘Ipsa Ecclesia, ipse fidelium coetus est domus Dei.” Vitringa, 
‘“‘ De Synag. vetere,” 446; Augusti, ““ Archzol.,” i, 336. 

1 Ἐὰν εἰσέλθη εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ὑμῶν ἁνὴρ. James ii, 2. We must 
not, as Vitringa does, (‘‘ De Synag. vetere,”’) make the unfair deduc- 
tion from this expression, that the worship of the Church resembled 
in all respects that of the synagogue. 

§ We are not speaking of the erection of majestic edifices for wor- 
ship, but simply of the superstition which introduces into Christianity 
the notion of a sanctuary, a place in itself exceptionally holy. 


|‘ Whether ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the 
glory of God.’”?—Tlavra εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ ποιεῖτε. I Cor. x, 31. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 365 


Christian spirit to the dignity of a religious service. 
To the believer nothing is common or unclean ; 
every thing is holy.* It is impossible, then, to find } 
in the Gospel a principle with which we can connect / 
the institution of one holy day, as belonging to God,’ 
more than the rest. This institution is intimately 
associated with the old covenant, and ought to have 
vanished with it like the priesthood and the consecra- 
tion of special holy places. With regard to the dis- 
tinction of certain days Paul proclaims the principles 
of the new covenant with all his wonted clearness 
and force. “How,” he writes to the Galatians, 
“turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, 
whereunto ye desire again to be brought in bondage? 
Ye observe days and months, and times and years.’ + 
To the Colossians he says: “Let no man judge you 
in meat or drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the 
new moon, or of the sabbath-days, which are a 
shadow of things to come.” Such being the prin- 

* The advocates of the permanence of the Sabbath appeal to the 
decalogue. But Paul has already taught us that the decalogue con- 
tains the law of holiness in but an incomplete form—a form which 
has been done away with the whole of Judaism. To trace the Sab- 
bath back to the garden of Eden is to lose sight of the true conditions 
of innocence, which do not admit a division of the life into the sacred 
and profane. The blessing pronounced on the seventh day did not 
imply rest in Paradise; it applied to the whole creation, which for 
the first time appeared complete. The life of the world before the 
fall was a blessed life—the whole earth was a temple, and every man 
a priest. The Jewish Sabbath wasa reminder of this happy past, and 
at the same time a prophecy of its restoration in the future. It was 
also a witness to the total perversion of human life previous to re- 
demption, since that life needed to be interrupted in some sort, in 
order that man might serve God. 

t+ Ἡμέρας παρατηρεῖσθε, καὶ μῆνας, καὶ καιροὺς, καὶ ἐνιαυτούς. Gal. 
iv, 9-11. 


366 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


ciples of the Apostle, it remains for us to see what 
was the practice of the Churches. It differed among 
the various sections of primitive Christianity. The 
disciples in Palestine scrupulously observed the Sab- 
bath and the Jewish feasts, but they made no dis- 
tinction between days with regard to their Christian 
worship, properly so called. The Gentile Churches 
rejected the Sabbath as they did circumcision. They 
assembled every day at Ephesus to hear Paul.* This 
was doubtless also the case in the other mission 
centers of Greece and Asia. 

We do not imagine that the Gentile converts at 
this period felt themselves bound to observe any of 
the great Jewish feasts, not even the Passover or the 
Pentecost. They had received no commandment 
concerning them. No stress can be laid on Paul’s 
example in repairing to the Holy City to keep the 
Pentecostal feast, for the case is irrelevant. A Jew 
by birth, he faithfully observed the conditions laid 
down by the Council at Jerusalem, and himself ad- 
hered to the customs of Moses, though in a broad 
spirit of tolerance and charitable concession.t Wedo 
not condemn the Christian festival in itself; on the 
contrary, we fully admit its lawfulness and utility. We 
only desire to show that it is not of directly divine 
institution. It cannot plead even the practice of the 
Apostles, since in their observance of the feasts of the 
Passover and Pentecost they celebrated the ancient 
Jewish festivals, not the high days of the new cove- 
nant. The latter have been freely set apart by the 
Church under the influence of true Christian feeling. 


* “Teaching daily in the school of one Tyrannus.”’ Acts xix, 9. 
+ This is Schaff’s great argument. (P. 546.) : 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 307 


An old ecclesiastical historian says: “ Never did the 
Apostles impose the yoke of bondage on those who 
came to them for teaching ; they left the observance 
of the Passover and other feasts to the free will of 
those who thought it well and profitable to keep 
them. The Lord and his Apostles instituted no 
feasts by law, nor did they, like Moses, hold any 
threat of punishment or a curse over those who did 
not observe them. The aim of the Apostles was not 
to lay down laws for special seasons, but to lead 
men’s lives back to uprightness and piety.” * 

During the whole period of St. Paul we find only 
two very vague indications of the celebration of wor- 
ship on the first day of the week.f Itis impossible to 
draw from them any certain conclusion. Consider- 
ing, however, that in the following period that day is 
already known as the Lord’s day, it seems probable 
that the custom of celebrating worship with more 
than ordinary solemnity on the first day of the week 
commenced very early in the apostolic age. The 
Church did not by this practice depart at all from the 
principles of Paul ; it did not invest that day with an 
exceptional sanctity, nor lower at all the ordinary level 
of the Christian life. It had no thought of putting 

the Lord’s day in the place of the Jewish Sabbath. 
It is certain that for a long time many of the Chris- 


* wochates, 6°" Elist, . Ecclesice;,” ον, 22.3, Augusti, .-“ Archeeal.,” 
1-174: 

Ἱ Ἐν μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων, συνηγμένων τῶν μαθητῶν. Actsxx,7. The 
passage I Cor. xvi, 2, ‘‘ Upon the first day of the week let every one 
of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him,” does not 
speak of the public assembly of the Church. (See Neander, ‘‘ Pflanz.,” 
i, 272.) Bingham, according to his wont, forces the sense of these 
two passages. ‘*‘ Origines,”’ v, 280. 


268 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


tians kept the seventh day of the week as the Sab- 
bath. If the Church had been standing on the 
ground of legalism it would have been impossible for 
it to transfer the rest of the Sabbath from one day of 
the week to another without a divine revelation. No 
such claim to a divine institution of the Lord’s day 
was advanced in the early ages. The Christians 
were not content with saying that they had neither 
temple nor altars ; they also distinctly avowed by the 
mouth of Justin Martyr, “ We do not sabbatize.” * 
The worship of the Churches founded by Paul bears 
the same impress of liberty and spirituality by which 
their piety was characterized. The liturgical element 
is completely absent ; every thing is spiritual and free. 
Some organization, however, is found indispensable, 
that all things may be done decently and in order. 
The rules which Paul gives refers simply to what is 
decorous. He desires that while the man has his 
head uncovered the woman should be covered, thus 
marking by her appearance the reserve of modesty 
so becoming to her, and which nature herself suggests 


* Οὐ σαββατιζόμεν. Justin, ‘ Dial. cum Tryph.,” p. 246. There is 
nothing in the foregoing consideration opposed to the observance of 
the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a necessity of public worship; it is 
needed as are the temple and the ministry ; but there is, nevertheless, 
a universal priesthood, as it were, for all days as for all men. This is 
the essential principle of the new covenant, which is so palpably ig- 
nored in what is called Sabbatarianism. The Sabbath is not more 
holy in itself to the exclusion of other days than the temple to the ex- 
clusion of other places. The Sabbath is the Lord’s day, as the temple 
is the Lord’s house. This analogy is very striking in the German. 
The word Church (Kirche) comes from the Greek work Κυριακῆ 
(Dominica ;) the temple is τὸ κυριακόν, the place of the Lord. The 
Church is the Lord’s place, as the Sabbath is the Lord’s day. August, 
* Archeol.,”? i, 35. This analogy solves the question. 


BOOK JL——-FIRST :.€ENTURY. 369 


by the long hair given her for a vail. The Apostle — 


also forbids a woman to teach in the Christian 
assembly.) a° Car. 30,7 4575: Εἶν; 34. ΕΠ ΑΒΕ anziqus 
that individual inspiration should be controlled, and 
kept in subjection, that it might not interfere with 
the general edification. 

The essential acts of worship were always the read- 
ing of the Holy Scriptures, prayer, teaching, and 
praise.* The Old Testament was at this period the 
only canonical book acknowledged by the Church. 
Interpreted in its deep significance, often, perhaps, 
used somewhat allegorically, as in the epistles of St. 
Paul, it opened an inexhaustible mine of Christian 
instruction. The words of the Lord Jesus were 
earnestly meditated upon, and were listened to as the 
voice of God. Paul reminds the Corinthians that 
these had formed the basis of his teaching, and that 
he had quoted to them the words of the Lord Jesus 
himself, concerning the institution of the Lord’s 
Supper and the resurrection. Col. iv, 16; 1 Thess. 


v, 27. But these words of the Master are not found 


in the canonical Gospels. They were either handed 
down by oral tradition, or were contained in some of 
those anonymous writings which Luke mentions in 
the prologue.to his Gospel. We cannot, therefore, 
regard the use then made of the discourses of our 
Lord as part of the reading of Holy Scripture. 

Nor can we include under that head the reading 
of the letters of the Apostles, expressly recommended 


* See Harnack, work quoted, pp. 146-164. 

+ The commandment of Paul to Timothy to give attendance to 
reading (1 Tim. iy, 13) seems to refer to the public reading of the 
Seriptures, for in the same passage exhortation is spoken of. 


24 


370 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


by, them, (Col. iv, 165: 1.Thess.v,.27,))for thereassnp 
indication that this reading was to be regularly and 
statedly repeated, like that of the Old Testament. 
These letters were the echo of the living voice of 
the Apostles. They were received with the same 
respect paid to their spoken words, and were in- 
vested with all apostolical authority. But while the 
Apostles still lived, the idea was not entertained 
-—because the necessity was not felt—of forming a 
canon of the New Covenant. It was not until sub- 
sequently that this legitimate want sought and found 
satisfaction.* 

Teaching formed an important part of primitive 
worship, and especially of the worship of the Churches 
at adistance from Jerusalem. Teaching gained in pro- 
portion as ritualism lost. The priest always eclipses 
the teacher where there is a priesthood and sacrifice 
to be offered. Weneed not here repeat the evidence 
that the right of teaching was granted to all. But if 
any might teach, they might not teach any thing ; the 
doctrine of the Apostles was to be the standard and 
rule, because it was the faithful reproduction of the 
doctrine of Jesus Christ. “Stand fast,” writes St. 
Paul to the Thessalonians, ‘and hold the traditions 
which ye have been taught, whether by word or our 
epistle’” 2 Thess-i, 52:2 Lima, 13 ΤΠ ΠΕ 9.4 Cai 
and systematic teaching is gradually but steadily sub- 
stituted for the language of ecstacy, prophecy, and 
the gift of tongues. Paul seems even to fear that 
these miraculous gifts may fall into too great dis- 

* We have already noticed, in’ speaking of the origin of the first 


three Gospels, the preference of the primitive Church for the living 
word. (Seé Augusti, ‘‘ Archzol.,” 11, 165.) 


BOOK ἘΞ --Ἰ ΡΘΕΝ ΕΣ 371 


credit, for he warns the Thessalonians not to quench 
the Spirit, nor to despise prophesyings.* 

In his discourse at Miletus, however, as in his later 
epistles, he insists strongly on the importance of 
teaching. Acts xx, 31-33 3/1 Limioiv; ὁ... Titusss δὲ 
At a time when the Apostles were about to be re- 
moved, and when, consequently, the control of indi- 
vidual inspiration would be more difficult, it greatly 
concerned the welfare of the Church that the teaching 
by which the apostolic doctrine was to be perpetuated 
should acquire a preponderating influence. 

Prayer is the soul of Christian worship, as it is the 
source of all Christian life. It sprang up freely, as 
did the word of edification. It contained no admix- 
ture of any liturgical element, and there is not a word 
in the whole of the New Testament in support of the 
idea that the Lord’s Prayer was repeated as a sacred 
formula.t 

St. Paul, however, without desiring at all to infringe 
this liberty, specifies some points which should not 
be neglected ‘in Christian prayer, and especially in 
the prayer of the Church. He desires that prayer be 
made for all men, especially for kings and those in 
authority, thus tracing a strong line of demarkation 
between the religious revolution which he desires to 
effect, and any thing like a political revolution. Thus 
even in this free domain of prayer we discern a law 


ἘΠΙροφητείας μὴ ἐξουθενεῖτε. τ Thess. v, 20. 

+ Bingham affirms the liturgical use of the Lord’s Prayer in the 
first century, without giving the least proof of the fact. ‘‘ Origines,” 
v, 125. Vitringa erroneously draws a parallel between the prayers 
of the Church and those of the synagogue. In reality, on the one 
hand all is spontaneous; on the other all is fixed and methodical. 
** De Synag. vet.,” p. 162. See Augusti, ‘“‘ Archzol.,” ii, 60. 


37/2 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


of divine wisdom. Thanksgiving—the Lucharist, 
properly so called—had a very large place in the 
prayer of the first Christians. Phil. iv, 6. For along 
time this preserved its character of a joyous outpour- 
ing of adoration and gratitude.* Thé assembly ex- 
pressed its concurrence in the spoken petitions by a 
consentaneous Ammen.t 

The Church does not remain satisfied, as at first, 
with singing the Psalms. Christian feeling finds 
expression in its own spiritual song. This utterance, 
like prayer and the word of edification, proceeds in 
the first instance from individual inspiration. “If 
any man hath a psalm,” says the Apostle, “let him 
speak.) plies..av, coz. Col. ὅπ, Ὁ; τ Gor acy) 26) 
Here the reference is evidently to a new song given 
by inspiration of the Spirit of God to one in the as- 
sembly. The song is a sort of transition between the 
cift of tongues and the calm and measured utterance 
of teaching ; it gives vent to those deep and ardent 
feelings which cannot be restrained within the form 
of ordinary speech; it bears up to heaven the unut- 
terable yearnings and the inexpressible adoration of 
primitive Christianity. None of these first psalms 
of the Christian Church have come down to us, be- 
cause, like its prayers, they were essentially sponta- 
neous, and were multiplied in such abundance in those 
days of mighty inspiration. 

But though we do not possess any of the hymns 
of the first century, we find in the Epistles of St. 
Paul clear traces of what we may call the lyrical inspi- 


* See the fragments of ancient liturgies published by Bunsen in his 
“« Anténicoena,”’ vol. iii. 
t Πῶς ἐρεῖ ro. ἀμὴν. 1 Cor. xiv, 16. 


BOOK. 1 Ξ- ΤΣ .CENTURY. 373 


ration of the apostolic age. The close of the 8th 
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the 13th chap- 
ter of the Epistle to the Corinthians, and many other 
passages, in which the soaring thoughts of the Apostle 
rise to the heights of sublime poetry,* give us a con- 
ception of what the inspired song was, which was 
freely heard in the first Christian assemblies. 

The idea of the sacraments entertained in the 
primitive Church was in harmony with its general 
constitution.| Based upon living faith, this Church 
was an association of Christians working together for 
their own edification and for the evangelization of the 
world, The notion of any intrinsic virtue in a sacra- 
ment, the theory of the opus operatum, inseparable 
from the sacerdotal system, could have found no place 
in these congregations, which had the living Spirit of 
God in their midst. Every thing in the doctrine of 
St. Paul is opposed to any such views. The Apostle, 
who acknowledged no saving virtue in any outward 
observance of the law, would assuredly not have 
ascribed such virtue to a purely material act. ‘“ The 
kingdom of God,” in his view, “ was not in word but 
in power.”’{ In speaking, then, of the sacraments of 
the primitive Church, we must set aside all notions 
of sacramental grace by which the operation of God 
is assimilated to the arts of magic. Such conceptions 
of divine grace are, as Bunsen eloquently says, bor- 
rowed from the lustrations of decaying paganism.§ 

* See also 1 Tim. iii, 16; Eph. v, 14. (See ‘* Das Kirchenlied in 
seiner Geschichte und Bedentung,” by W. Baur, Frankfort, 1852; 
Augusti, ‘‘ Archeeol.,” 11, 110-123.) 

¢ The word sacraments is quite unknown in biblical language in 


the sense in which it is used by us. 
t’Ev dvvapei. 1 Cor. iv, 20. § Bunsen, ** Hippolytus,” ii, 127. 


374 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Baptism, which was the sign of admission into the 
Church, was administered by immersion.‘ The con- 
vert was plunged beneath the water, and as he rose 
from it he received the laying on of hands. These 
two rites corresponded to the two great phases of con- 
version, the crucifixion of the old nature preceding 
the resurrection with Christ. Faith was thus required 
of every candidate for baptism. The idea never oc- 
curred to Paul that baptism might be divorced from 
faith—the sign from the thing signified ; and he does 
not hesitate, in the bold simplicity of his language, 
to identify the spiritual fact of conversion with the 
act which symbolizes it. “We are buried with 
Christ .by baptism into death,” he says. Rom. 
vi, 4. With such words before us, we are compelied 
either to ascribe to him, in spite of all else that he 
has written, the materialistic notion of baptismal 
regeneration, or to admit that with him faith is so 
intimately associated with baptism, that in speaking 
of the latter he includes the former, without which it 
would be a vain form. The writers of the New 
Testament all ascribe the same significance to bap- 
tism. It presupposes with them invariably a mani- 
festation of the religious life, which may differ in 
degree, but which is in every case demanded. Acts 
1, 3. Oe VIL e 7,4 87, 73 Cig, Ae eae KML eae, Os 
“The baptism which saves us,” says St. Peter, “is 
not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the 
answer of a good conscience toward God, by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ.” * 

In these times, when the organization of the Church 


ἘΒάπτισμα. οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου, ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς. 
1 Peter ΤΙ 21: 


BOOK II,—FIRST CENTURY. 375 


was still in many respects undefined, baptism was 
equivalent to the profession of faith. Administered 
in the name of the Lord Jesus* as a solemn sign of 
conversion, it had all the value of an explicit confes- 
sion of the Christian faith, especially at a time when 
its observance was sure to bring down reproach and 
persecution.t It is further probable that before re- 
ceiving baptism, the convert made a short profession 
of his faith ; this was that answer of a good conscience 
toward God spoken of by St. Peter. This custom 
was quite habitual in the second century, and there 
is every reason to suppose it originated in the first. 
This simple and popular confession of faith has been 
erroneously confounded with the Apostle’s Creed, 
which is of much later date. - That Creed is nothing 
more than an expansion of the baptismal formula, 
which received gradual additions till it became a rule 
of faith. 

Regarded from the apostolic point of view, baptism 
cannot be connected either with circumcision or with 
the baptism administered to proselytes to Judaism. 
Between it and circumcision there is all the difference 
which exists between the Theocracy, to which admis- 


= There is no example in the New Testament of the employment 
of the complete formula of baptism. Bingham in vain attempts to 
deny this fact. “‘ Origines,” iv, 163. 

+ Great importance must haye been attached to baptism as the 
sign of incorporation with the Church, since in some congrega- 
tions it was held necessary to administer it to Christians already 
baptized, in the name of catechumens who had died before receiy- 
ing it. This is in our opinion the only reasonable meaning to attach 
to those words. 1 Cor. xv, 29. This practice, passingly mentioned 
by δὲ. Paul, was afterward perpetuated in heretical sects. Epi- 
phanius, “ Heres,” chap. xxviii, page 7; Tertullian, ‘“‘De Resur- 
reclione,”’ page 48. 


376 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


sion was by birth, and the Church, which is entered 
only by conversion. It is in direct connection with 
faith, that is, with the most free and most individual 
action of the human soul. As to the baptism admin- 
istered to the Jewish proselytes, it accompanied cir- 
cumcision, and was of like import. It purified the 
neophyte and his family from the defilements of 
paganism, and sealed his incorporation and that of 
his children with the Jewish theocracy ; its character 
was essentially national and theocratic.* Christian 
baptism is not to be received, any more than faith, 
by right of inheritance. This is the great reason 
why we cannot believe that it was administered in the 
apostolic age to little children. No positive fact 
sanctioning the practice can be adduced from the 
New Testament ; the historical proofs alleged are in 
no way conclusive. ‘There is only one case affording 
any ground for doubt, and those who attach more 
importance to the general spirit of the new covenant 
than to the isolated text, unhesitatingly admit that it 
is of no force.f 


* Augustine has erroneously established a complete parallel between 
Christian baptism and that of the Jewish proselytes. ‘* Archzeal.,” 
live 220: 

+ Five baptized households are mentioned in the New Testament. 
The family of Cornelius was baptized only after the descent of the 
Holy Ghost upon all its members. Acts x, 44,47. The family of the 
jailer at Phillippi had heard the preaching of Paul and Silas: ‘* They 
spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his 
house.” Acts xvi, 32. The house then contained no child incapable 
of comprehending the Gospel. We read in Acts xvii, 8: ‘‘ Crispus 
believed on the Lord with all his house.’”? St. Paul says (1 Cor. i, 
16) that he baptized the family of Stephanas; and in the same 
epistle (xvi, 15) he mentions that this family was the first-fruits of 
his ministry in Achaia, a statement which implies that all its members 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 277 


In this second period of the apostolic age the com- 
munion is not celebrated at every meal, as in the 
primitive times. It forms the conclusion of those 
feasts of brotherly love, known under the name of 
agape, at which the rich and the poor sat side by 
side on equal terms. I Cor. xi, 20-22. This was a 
custom borrowed from the usages of ancient Greece,* 
and sanctified and transformed by Christian love. 
The agape is neither a mere ordinary meal, like those 
spoken of in the early chapters of the Acts, nor a 
solemn sacrament, as the Lord’s Supper became in 
the Church in succeeding times. It is an exceptional 
meal, but still itis a meal. The communion is sub- 
sequently altogether merged in the mystical feast of 
the Church. But, at the time we are now considering, 
it is still regarded as the Supper of the Lord, and is 
celebrated around the tables of the agape. It is 
observed in the evening.t If its celebration is at a 
different hour from that of public worship, it is not 
on the ground that has been assumed of there having 
already arisen a custom of private and secret worship 
reserved for Christians alone. It is the love-feast of 
the Christian family, therefore it is taken in the 
evening, and in privacy. No conclusion can be 
drawn from this practice to bear upon times when 
the Lord’s Supper has become a ceremonial of worship 


were converted. The single doubtful case is that of the baptism of 
the family of Lydia, (Acts xvi, 15;) but it loses this character when 
we connect it with the instances already referred to. It appears to 
us evident that the family of Lydia was the first-fruits of Macedonia, 
as the family of Stephanas was of Achaia. 

* Xenophon (‘Memorabil.,” iii, 14) speaks of meals to which 
each brought his own food. 

{ Acts xx, 7. Augustine, ‘“‘ Archzeol.,” ii, 562. 


278 - EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


properly so called.* St. Paul presents to us a faithful 
picture of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and 
we find in it no trace of a consecration of the elements. 
When he calls the eucharistic cup ‘the cup of bless- 
ing which we bless,” he is referring to a well-known 
custom of the paschal feast. The head of the house- 
hold, when he took the cup, uttered a prayer, blessing 
God for the gift of the bread and wine.t Jesus 
Christ, having made the bread and wine the solemn 
symbols of his body broken and blood shed for our 
sins, the Lord’s Supper recalled at once the benefits 
of creation and those of redemption. It was thus a 
feast of thanksgiving, a solemn eucharist. During a 
long period the Church felt constrained at this 
moment to bless God for all his gifts, alike for those 
of nature and of grace.t The Lord’s Supper was not 
regarded as a sacrifice or offering ; it was the renewal 
of the paschal feast taken by the Lord with his dis- 
ciples, and the great memorial of the love of God 
regarded in all its manifestations, from the most ele- 
mentary to the most mysterious, and sealed with the 
blood of Christ. 

It is not possible for us to represent to ourselves 
exactly the mode of celebration of the communion at 
this period. A prayer of gratitude was doubtless 
spoken as the cup passed from hand to hand. Hence 
the name of the eucharistic cup. The bread was 

* Harnack attaches an exaggerated importance to this fact. 
163-165. 

t “ Benedictus tu, Domini Deus noster, qui producis panem e terra 
creans fructum vitis.”” Harnack, p. 166. 

¢ The eucharistic prayers of the second and third centuries which 


have come down to us give convincing proof of this. ‘ Ecclesize 
Alexandr. Monumenta.” Bunsen, ‘ Analecta Anteniccena,”’ iii, 107. 


BOGEK-i:—-Fikst CENTURY. 379 


broken in remembrance of the* broken body of the 
Lord. There is every reason to believe a psalm or 
hymn was sung, as it was by Jesus and his disciples 
in the upper chamber. It does not appear probable 
that the words instituting the feast were regularly 
repeated on every occasion. The manner in which 
Paul quotes them argues the contrary. He refers to 
them as to some special teaching which he had given, 
and not as to an established usage in the Church. 
Ike ες xi, 23. 

While the Lord’s Supper was thus celebrated with 
all simplicity and liberty, it was, nevertheless, invested 
with much solemnity in the eyes of the Church. It 
summed up in one symbol, chosen by the Lord him- 
self, the whole Christian religion. To partake of it 
was to make the most solemn profession of faith in 
Christ. To receive it unworthily was not only to 
despise the Lord’s body in the symbol which spiritu- 
ally set it forth, but also to make the Church par- 
taker in the sin. Thus serious and severe discipline 
was appointed not merely to prevent the profanation 
of the Lord’s Supper, but also to repress all kind of 
irregularities.* This discipline dealt only with scan- 
dalous offenses, and made no pretension to guard the 
visible Church against all contact with evil. Immo- 
rality and flagrant heresy were followed by the exclu- 
sion of the offenders.— The Christians were enjoined 
to avoid all contact with the false brother who brought 


* Schaff, p. 491. 

+ The synagogue also had its excommunication, commencing with 
the rebuke, “ peccatores publice confundunt.”’ (Vitringa, “‘ De Synag. 
vet.,’’ 731,) and ending in exclusion, ‘‘ Ingressus in synagogam ipsi 
sit prohibitus.”” (P. 741.) 


380 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


dishonor upon the Church. Rom. xvi, 17; 2 Thess. 
ili, 6, 14; I Cor. v, 2. They were not to eat with 
him ; not only was he forbidden to be present at the 
agape and the Lord’s Supper, but even all social 
intercourse with him was prohibited. In those days 
of miracle, when the Holy Ghost still acted in a direct 
and sensible manner, the discipline of the Church was 
often confirmed by some exceptional and sudden 
attestation—the stroke of the divine rod.* The 
Apostle, by a lively image taken from the book of 
Job, called this intervention of the justice of Goda 
visitation of Satan. In this sense he delivered great 
offenders over to Satan, not for their perdition but 
their amendment, hoping that suffering might bring 
them to repentance. I Tim. i, 20. The anathema 
pronounced. against the false teachers of Galatia has 
the same Significance and bearing. The Apostle 
earnestly desired the restoration of the offenders, and 
after their repentance they were restored. But neither 
in the act of excommunication or of re-admission were 
the solemn forms of subsequent ages employed in the 
primitive Church. 

There is no trace in the apostolic age of any other 
sacraments than baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 
The anointing with oil, enjoined by James, (James 
v, 14, 15,) has none of the characteristics of a sacra- 
ment. It does not symbolize any great aspect of the 
religious life, nor is it of general usage. It can only 
be regarded as an oriental custom accepted in the 
Churches of Palestine, and sanctified by prayer. We 


* Tn this way we explain the sicknesses and punishments with which 
the Corinthians who had unworthily partaken of the Lord’s Supper 
were visited. 1 Cor. xi, 30, 31. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 381 


have no particular account of the manner in which 
the last honors were paid to the dead. It is probable 
that the Churches founded in Greece and Asia Minor 
at once abandoned the pagan practice of burning 
the bodies of the departed, and buried them like the 
Jews. Belief in the resurrection of the body favored 
this custom. St. Luke tells us that after the death 
of Stephen the devout men who carried him to his bu- 
rial made great lamentation over him.* This is the 
first instance recorded of any funeral ceremony ; it is 
possible that the practice became general from that 
time. The ceremonial probably consisted of prayers 
and exhortations. 


δ᾽ Il. The Christian Life.t 


Between the worship and the Christian life of the 
primitive Church there was a close relation. Wor- 
ship was nothing else than the solemn epitome or 
concentration of the Christian life, while the entire 
life was raised to the height of true service to God. 
This character of sacredness, impressed upon the 
whole existence, is especially remarkable in the first 
period of the history of the first century, when the* 
Church lived, as it were, in heaven, raised above earth 
by its young and ardent enthusiasm, or rather, by the 
all-powerful influence of the divine Spirit. It seems, 
for the time, as if all social and family relations were 
absorbed in the new relation formed among those who 
had received the baptism of fire ; but it was according 

* Συνεκόμισαν δὲ τὸν Στέφανον ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς, καὶ ἐποιήσαντο 
κοπετὸν μέγαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ. Acts viii, 2. 

+ This subject is carefully treated by .Schaff; work quoted, pp. 
447 -500. 


382 EARLY YEARS OF. THE CHRISTIAN? CHURCH. 


to the will of God that human life, with all its nu- 
merous and varied natural elements, should re-appear 
in the Church to be transformed by the new Spirit. 
Within the Church was to be realized that gradual 
coalescing of the human and the divine which alone 
gives to the plan of salvation its full and beautiful 
development. We must not, however, lose sight of 
the fact that the human element was at this period 
deeply defiled by heathenism. It was not possible 
that it should be at once brought into entiré subjec- 
tion to Christianity. Some spheres of action, which 
come not only naturally but rightly within the domain 
of the religion of Christ, were necessarily closed to it, 
so long as civilization rested upon a pagan foundation. 
How, for example, could a Christian exercise any 
magisterial function at a time when religion was so 
identified with politics that the most simple public 
act was associated with idolatry? How was it pos- 
sible for Christians to cultivate any branch of art, so 
long as art—that great syren of Greece—was at the 
service of paganism ; but it would be a very false 
conclusion that the domain of public life, or that of 
art, was to be permanently closed to Christians. 
Had there been any foundation for such an opinion 
the Apostles would have expressly stated as a prin- 
Ὁ ciple the positive incongruity, of religion and politics, 
of Christianity and the zsthetic faculties ; but they 
make no such assertion. St. Paul recognizes the 
State in itself as a divine institution, necessary for 
moral development. “Let every soul,” he says, “be 
subject unto the higher powers. For there is no 
power but of God: the powers that be are ordained 
of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 383 


resisteth the ordinance of God ; and they that resist 
shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers 
are not a terror to good works but to the evil. Wilt 
thou, then, not be afraid of the power? do that which 
is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for 
he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if 
thou do that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth 
not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, 
a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth 
evil.’ * The Apostle, in these words, rises from the 
corrupt manifestations of the civil power which are 
before his eyes, to its principal and fundamental idea. 
He acknowledges it to be a divine institution, and, 
consequently, an essential condition of moral devel- 
opment. 1+Lim: 1, \1;+2.-*~He desires that the Chns-= 
tian, so far from taking a position hostile to the State, 
should pay to it all due submission and respect ; and 
he enjoins as a duty the offering of prayers for kings 
and all in authority. As there is no necessary antag- 
onism between Christianity and the State, the Chris- 
tian will be in time called upon to fulfill his duties as 
an active citizen, and to contribute to the general 
well-being in temporal matters—to uphold, that is, 
the cause of justice. But, before he can enter on 
this career, the general conditions of ancient society 

ἘΞ Ὸ ἀντιτασσόμενος τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ διαταγῇ ἀνθέστηκεν. Rom. 
xiii, 2-4. Paul, in this passage, rises to the ideal conception of the 
State. He establishes that there is no opposition between Christian- 
ity and the State in itself, but he does not teach us, as has been asserted, 
unreserved submission to existing authority, whatever may be its in- 
fringements of moral freeaom. This question is not even touched 
upon by him in this passage. He has been erroneously made to ad- 
vocate a doctrine which, in its abuse, does away entirely with the true 


conception of the State, since the State may cease to be the domain 
of right, and become simply that of blind and miquitous force. 


384 EARLY YEARS OF -THE CHRISTIAN -CHURCH. 


must be changed under the influence of the new 
religion. 

The question of the relations of Church and State 
could not come before the apostolic age. Those re- 
lations were then very simple; they were those of 
the persecuted and the persecutor. There was every 
thing, however, in the general principle of Christi- 
anity to set aside any idea of a formal association of 
the two. The close union between the Church and 
the State was one of the most characteristic features 
of pagan society, in which the individual was kept in 
absolute subordination to the State, his faith being no 
less under official control than his outward life. 
Christianity, the religion of the conscience, sought 
only free and individual adherence. Respect for the 
individual was born into the world with the respect 
for conscience. A State religion, however orthodox, 
will be always a partial resurrection of the pagan idea. 
Ancient religions were maintained only by coercion, 
and by the support of wealth—both forces foreign to 
Christianity, which conquers by none but spiritual 
weapons. It might well blush to grasp the sword 
which slays the body, since it has in its hand the 
sword which can pierce the soul. Its kingdom is not 
of this world, therefore it can assert its dominion 
over the whole world. Protection places it in a ser- 
vile position ; it is strong in its own independence. 
The State is not at variance with the Church—as the 
flesh with the spirit, the old man with the new. The 
State, no less than the Church, is of divine institu- 
tion. The Church is called to act upon it, but only 
by way of influence, and the more the two spheres 
are kept distinct, the greater and more penetrating 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 385 


is that influence. The State is the realm of right, 
and, consequently, of constraint and force, but of 
force regulated by, and made subservient to, justice. 
The Church is pre-eminently the realm of freedom, 
for it receives its members only by their own free ad- 
herence. To combine the two spheres is to confound 
things that differ, and to move both from their founda- 
tions. The union of Church and State reverses the 
apostolical conception of a religious society ; it is a 
retrogression from Christianity to paganism, or at 
least to Judaism. But mankind was to purchase this 
truth, like every other, at the price of long and bitter 
experience, by which it learned how much it costs the 
Church to mingle spiritual things with temporal. 
The religion of Christ was, therefore, contented 
with laying down the principles by which the State 
was to be renovated ; and it pursued the same course 
with reference to art. If, during the apostolic age, 
and the periods immediately succeeding, it held aloof 
from these two spheres of human activity, its influ- 
ence was only the more efficacious in transforming 
them. In maintaining the independence of con- 
science in relation to the State, in sanctioning its 
right to resist all coercion from without, Christianity 
laid the foundations of all true liberty, and insured 
the overthrow of all despotic powers. Martyrdom is 
the mightiest protest against persecution ; it shows 
material force the limit which it cannot pass. On the 
other hand, by the creation of a new ideal, at once 
divine and human, the way was prepared for truly 
Christian art, which should substitute for the calm, 
emotionless beauty of the Greek marbles, the deeper 


and more pathetic loveliness of those immortal forms, 
25 


386 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


to which the great artists inspired by the Gospel have 
given birth. 

All the reforms of Christianity have been wrought 
from within. The great revolution effected by it in 
the world had its beginning in human souls. Its 
first aim is to change the individual, that through him’ 
it may do its transforming work on society, and, 
primarily, on the family—that miniature society, 
source and type of the greater—upon which it has set 
its seal. The newreligion found, in the regeneration 
of the individual, the lever with which to upheave the 
old world. It is, then, of great importance that we 
form a true estimate of the general principles of 
Christian life in the first century. 

Its great principle is the imitation of Jesus Christ. 
To reproduce the features of his holy image, to feel 
as he felt, to share his humility, his self-renunciation, 
his tender compassion, to walk in love as he walked 
—such is the calling of his disciple.* He finds in 
his Saviour a living and powerful law, which “ gives 
what it commands,” to use the beautiful expression 
of St. Augustine. If Jesus Christ is the ideal type 
of the Christian, he is, at the same time, his support ; 
(John vi, 48, 50;) the bread of God coming down 
from heaven on which he feeds ; every member of 
his mystical body derives his nourishment by prayer 
from Christ the Head. Eph. iv, 15, 16. 

The Christian life of primitive times seems like the 
life of Christ continued upon earth. Its most striking 
characteristic is a fervor altogether apart from fanati- 
cism, which sustains it in the ordinary conditions of 

* Tobro yap φρονείσθω ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Phil. ii, 5; 
Col} ΠῚ 12,3125 Gipsy. 172: 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 387 


human life. These men, full of holy zeal for truth, 
and daily awaiting the return of the Lord, feel them- 
selves under no necessity to go out of the world, and 
to form for themselves a separate existence, like the 
Essenes and Therapeutics. Each remains in the 
position in which he was called,* unless he finds it 
one of too great temptation. The Christian has no 
sanction for abandoning work under pretext of yield- 
ing himself to pious meditation. 2 Thess. ili, 10, 13. 
Work itself rests upon a law of God; it is part of 
man’s allotted task. The primitive Churches found 
the larger part of their members, as we know, among 
the poorer classes. They contained a large number 
of artisans, men who supported themselves by the 
work of their own hands.t In ennobling manual 
labor, Paul prepared the way for one of the most im- 
portant reforms effected by Christianity. Toil had 
been regarded as a degradation in ancient society, 
which was composed only of victors and vanquished, 
indolents and slaves. All the conditions of pagan 
existence were overturned by so simple a reform. 
The right of conquest and the tyranny of a patrician 
class were virtually abolished. The Christian artisans 
of Corinth and of Thessalonica were thus, without 
knowing it, great social reformers. 

This disposition to impress on the entire life a 
divine seal and a religious character, was blended 
with a certain asceticism, to which no saving virtue 
was attributed, but which was of importance in the 
discipline of the spiritual life. Paul says, that he 
kept under his body. 1 Cor. ix, 27. He even goes 


* Ἕκαστον ὡς κέκληκεν ὁ Θεός, οὕτω περιπατείτω. ὃ Cor. vii, 17. 
{Ἐργάζεσθαι ταὶς ἰδίαις χερσὶν ὑμῶν. 1 Thess. iv, 11. 


388 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


so far as to recommend celibacy, as a state in which 
it is more easy to serve God without hinderance; and 
there is reason to believe that this counsel, falling 
from such lips, was frequently followed during the 
first century.* Fasting was practiced in all the 
Churches, especially in times of difficulty and trial, 
when a peculiar need was felt of near approach to 
God: -Acts. xilt;-2; 34 sxiv,, 25. But this asceticism 
was not made obligatory on any ; it was not prescribed | 
by any fixed rules. It was observed with all freedom, 
never approximating in any degree to oriental dualism, 
never. being regarded as the glorious and exclusive 
privilege of a sacerdotal class. It is considered a 
means of sanctification which should not be neglected, 
and which might render valuable aid_in the struggle 
against the flesh with its desires and lusts. Ever 
since this primitive age the Church has been carried 
about on this question from one extreme to the other, 
passing from monastic Manicheism to the complete 
repudiation of asceticism. In the first century it was 
equally removed from both extremes. 

One.of the most beautiful creations of primitive 
Christianity was the Christian family, as we see it in 
the Churches of those days. What the family was in 

* See 1 Cor. vii, dasstm. It is evident to us that Paul saw special 
reasons in the circumstances of the times m which he wrote, rendering 
celibacy desirable: διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶασαν ἀνάγκην. 1 Cor. vil, 26. He 
thinks, however, that the state of an unmarried man, who, possessing 
a special gift, is not exposed to the grossest temptations, is the most 
favorable to piety. 1 Cor. vil, 32-35. Paul states, that on this point 
he does not speak a positive command from the Lord, but his own 
individual conviction. This private opinion of his does not prevent 
his maintaining intact the great principles of the new covenant. The 


* forbidding to marry”’ is set forth by him as one of the most grievous 
signs of heresy. 1 Tim. iv, 3. 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 389 


the pagan world we know well. There was no 
medium for woman between the indolent and stupid 
captivity of the gynzeceum and the part of a courte- 
san. Christianity raises her from this degraded posi- 
tion, and makes her truly a helpmeet for man. The 
outward union becomes the symbol of the union of 
life and soul, and the relation of Christ to his Church 
is the sublime type of the conjugal relation. Ephes. 
v, 23. Thus marriage is at once invested with divine 
purity, and an element of true devotion sanctifies the 
earthly love. Polygamy is absolutely, though indi- 
rectly, abolished. Paul still keeps the wife in a posi- 
tion of subordination to her husband ; he demands 
from her respect and obedience, but he maintains her 
rights, those sacred rights of the weaker, which 
Christianity ever espouses before all others. On the 
part of the husband he requires protection and love. 
Ephes. v, 24, 25. Marriage thus regarded is a holy 
association of man and woman for the common pro- 
motion of God’s glory. Priscilla and Aquila, Paul’s 
able and efficient fellow-workers in the Gospel of 
Christ, and the instructors of Apollos, supply a noble 
type of a Christian couple in the first rues Acts 
xvii, 2; 20: 

A delicate question arose in these young Churches, 
composed of converts from paganism, as to what was 
the right course to take when either husband or wife 
became a Christian. Paul decides that the conjugal 
bond is not to be broken. The Christian wife may 
win the husband, or vice versa. 1 Cor. vii, 13-16. In 
any case, the marriage is sanctified by the prayers 
of the one who is the servant of Christ. Marriage 
appears to have been consecrated at this time only 


390 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISZEIAN CHURCH. 


by the piety and faithfulness of those thus united, for 
they did not have recourse to any special ceremony.” 
The right of contracting a fresh union was recognized 
only in the case of the death of the husband or wife, 
(1 Cor. vii, 39;) the only exception to this rule was 
that admitted by Jesus Christ in cases in which mar- 
riage had been morally violated by adultery. Second 
marriages were therefore tolerated, but it is easy to 
gather from the language of Paul that, in his view, 
perpetual widowhood was preferable. 1 Cor. vii, 40. 
This opinion resulted naturally from the principle of 
asceticism, which was one feature of his individuality. 

The relations of parents and children, no less than 
of husband and wife, assume a new character under 
the influence of Christianity. The implacable severity 
of the Roman father is to be tempered by Christian 
love ; he is to train up with all gentleness the frail 
being so absolutely dependent upon him; and the 
child, on its part, is bound to a submission the more 
perfect because not founded on fear. Ephes. v, 1.4: 
Then appears the sweet and attractive type of the 
Christian mother. When Paul says of the woman 
that ‘she shall be saved in child-bearing,” (1 Tim. 
li, 15,) he rises, according to his custom, from the 
particular to the general ; he sees in the woman the 
Eve who gave birth to the blessed Seed that was to 
bruise the serpent’s head, and who brings into the 
world day by day sons and servants of God, destined 
to carry on and complete the work of redemption. 
These she nourishes and cherishes by that Christian 
education in which she takes so direct and active a 


* The nuptial benediction is one of those happy innovations sug- 
gested to the Church by the Spirit of God. 


BOOK] [ἘΞ ΕΘ CENTURY: 301 


part. Thus the Christian family is established on its 
true basis. 

It has been made a reproach to Christianity that it 
did not at once proclaim the abolition of slavery. It 
is forgotten by those who bring this charge, that by 
taking such a course Christianity would have ex- 
changed the religious sphere for the civil, and would 
thus have confounded two domains, between which a 
careful distinction is always important, and was espe- 
cially so on its first introduction to the world. It 
could not enter into civil matters without exposing 
itself to all the perils, fluctuations, and chances of 
external authority. It would have become a political 
instead of a moral power; it would have abdicated 
its true throne of royalty, and bartered for an uncer- 
tain and hasty revolution that eternal power of refor- 
mation, by which it is able from age to age to renew 
individuals and societies. Christianity no more ac- 
cepted slavery than it accepted polygamy and Roman 
legislation as to divorce; and it brought into the 
world the principle which was to abolish these insti- 
tutions, so profoundly hostile to the morality of the 
Gospel. That principle it defined with reference to 
slavery with so much clearness, that it did in fact 
morally abolish it, so far as that was possible without 
going beyond its own domain. For, firstly, Chris- 
tianity regulates the relations of masters and servants 
according to the laws of justice. The one are to 
remember that they also have a Master in heaven, 
(Ephes. vi, 9,) the other to recover their dignity as men 
by doing their service as unto God.* Still further, 
Paul clearly declares that in Christ Jesus there is 


* ‘Oc δοῦλοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Ephes. vi, 6. 


392 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


“neither bond nor free,” that is to say, every human 
being has equal rights in the sight of God. Col. iii, 11. 
The possession of one man by another is thus pro- 
claimed to be immoral, an infringement of the rights 
of the redeemed in Christ, and incompatible with the 
doctrine of redemption and the equality which is its 
consequence. Nor was Paul content with a mere 
theoretical statement of these principles; he gave 
them practical application. His Epistle to Philemon 
is morally the deed of enfranchisement of the Chris- 
tian slave. He sends back Onesimus to his master, 
as a brother in the faith, as his own son, and asks 
that he may be received even as himself.* Such 
words have done more to break the fetters of the 
slave than the outbursts of rebellion, and the justly 
indignant cry of those who are unjustly oppressed. 
Let us- only picture to ourselves the slave, who yes- 
terday was grinding at the mill, or serving his master 
like a beast of burden in the fields, without receiving 
one look of kindly recognition, to-day sitting with him 
at the table of the agape, breaking with him the 
bread of communion, and drinking the same cup of 
blessing. Trials and persecutions he now under- 
goes in common with his master ; asa member of the 
same Church he is treated by him as a brother. 
Surely this is a vast social revolution, and one which 
cannot fail to bring in its train many results not at 
once, realized. We may add, that St. Paul was not 
satisfied with proclaiming the equality before God of 
men in Christ ; he declared positively that it was de- 
sirable that the Christian should be enfranchised in 

* Ῥμοῦ τεκνοῦ ὅν ἐγέννησα, αὐτὸν, τοῦτ' ἔστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα 
Philemon ΙΟ, 12. 


BOOK IIJ.—FIRST CENTURY. 393. 


fact as well as in spirit. He advised him not to 
neglect any opportunity that might offer to be made 
free.* This advice is very significant, especially if we 
consider what moderation of language was necessary 
on a question so delicate, which by one imprudent 
word might be made to trench on social and political 
problems. 

Christianity accepts the natural affections of man’s 
heart, those at least which are normal, and purifying 
and penetrating them with a supernatural and divine 
element, it assimilates them to the highest love. The 
essence of this pure and devoted love is the spirit of 
sacrifice, and it has received its name, as it received 
its character, from the Gospel. It is called charity. 
We have observed its first manifestation in the inner 
circle of the family, but it is not confined within 
these limits. It embraces all men in its arms of 
compassion, and while the national spirit among the 
ancients raised high barriers between different peo- 
ples, who were to each other as strangers and bar- 
barians, the Christian knows no such exclusive dis- 
tinctions. To him it is plain that God has made of 
one blood all nations of men ; ᾧ and if Tacitus brings 
against him the charge of hating the human race, it 
is only because the Christian is erroneously con- 
founded by him with the narrow and prejudiced Jew. 
The contact into which Jews were brought with con- 
verted Gentiles in the Churches founded by St. Paul, 
contributed effectually to the expansion of heart and 


* Ei καὶ δύνασαι ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι, μᾶλλον χρῆσαι. τ Cor. vii, 21. 

t ’Ayarn. τ Cor. ΧΙ, 1. This word had quite another meaning 
prior to Christianity. 

1 ᾿Εποίησέ re ἐξ ἑνὸς αἵματος πᾶν ἔθνος ἀνθρώπων. Acts xvii, 26. 


394 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


mind. By exalting the idea of humanity above that 
of nationality, Christianity gradually transformed the 
fierce patriotism of the old world into a nobler feeling. 
But it is pre-eminently in the Church that Christian 
affection finds its sphere. A spiritual bond, close and 
tender, is formed between those who are partakers 
of the same faith. In token that they form but one 
family in Christ, they call each other brethren, (Rom. 
Must2s xy Oe. απ τιν, Osh pho, ao ee hile 
14; 1 Peter ii, 17,) they “salute one another with a 
holy kiss,” (Rom. xvi, 16 ; 1 Cor. xvi, 20; 2 Cor. xiii, 
το hess: ἣν 26:1 ΒΟ δεῖν, 14) they! are-of one 
heart and one soul. So strange a spectacle constrains 
both Jews and Gentiles to exclaim, “ Behold how 
they love one another!” When a Christian stranger 
arrives in a city he is received as the representative 
of his Church. It is esteemed a privilege to give him 
lodging ; pious widows wash his feet, according to 
oriental custom, and he receives every token of - 
brotherly affection. The care of the poor and the af- 
flicted becomes, as is natural, one of the chief con- 
cerns of Christian love. We know how high a place 
of honor is given to the poor in the Church of Christ. 
Poverty has preserved a reflected ray of the glory of 
Him who humbled himself and became poor ; and the 
poor are lifted up because Christ has identified them 
with himself. It is not necessary to enumerate here 
the various offices created especially with a view to 
succor the poor. The example of Dorcas shows us 
how large was the love of the first Christians for the 
poor and needy, even when they acted only in their 
private capacity. Acts ix, 36. Large and regular col- 
lections were also made to provide for the wants of 


BOOK If.——FIRS£. CENTURY: 395 


the Churches which were unable to support them- 
selves. 

The relations of Christians with the world were 
regulated by Paul with much wisdom. He was far 
from desiring that by an extreme and impracticable 
exclusiveness they should avoid all contact with men 
not yet converted. 1 Cor. v; 10. He did not blame 
them for sitting at the table of the heathen. 1 Cor. 
x, 27. He desired only that they should make no 
compact with evil and idolatry. 

Two opposite tendencies had manifested themselves 
among the Christians of that time. Some, narrow 
and timorous, scrupled to eat of meats which had been 
sacrificed to idols; others, of a broader spirit, and 
maintaining that an idol is in truth nothing at all, felt 
themselves justified in eating any thing that was sold 
in the market. Paul holds the justness of the latter 
principle ;..(1.Cor.x, 23, 24.;) but he-demands:from 
those who espoused it the largest consideration and 
respect for the conscience of weaker brethren, and 
urges on them the exercise of that elevated and deli- 
cate charity which can sacrifice a right rather than 
wound a weak brother, and which will not peril 
the soul of another for the sake of meat. 1 Cor. viii, 
IO-I3. 

Surrounded by all the seductions of paganism, the 
Churches were to use constant watchfulness. The 
letters of Paul give glimpses of strange revivals of old 
pagan corruption among these young Christians ; 
and a dangerous readiness to fall back into the mire 
of licentiousness is evidenced by his frequent warn- 
ings against the sins of the flesh. 1 Cor. vi, 15-20; 
Col. iii, 5-9. Many other blemishes appear in the 


306 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


picture of Christianity drawn by the Apostle. We 
have not disguised these in sketching the history of 
the various Churches. Schisms, heresies, the pride 
of wealth, the tendency to self-indulgence, all these 
aberrations which we have pointed out, show us that 
the Churches of the first century were not, any more 
than those of any other age, pure Churches. But 
in spite of these imperfections—upon which their 
founders and directors felt bound to speak more 
strongly than in commendation of the piety of the 
faithful--the Christianity of that age has all the 
beauty of a new creation of God, which had not had 
time to be vitiated by man. “The world,’ says 
Bossuet, “believed in holiness as it saw holy men.” 
And what examples of holiness was it not permitted 
to witness in this period of the apostolic age? The 
form of St. Paul—severe, earnest, burning with zeal 
for God, bearing the honorable scars of persecution— 
stands forth as if to manifest to all eyes what power 
and moral beauty human nature gains by union with 
Christ. The great Apostle was pre-eminently a great 
saint, and it may even be added, (taking the word in 
its best sense,) a great mystic in the depth of his 
piety and the fervor of his love to Christ. In the 
domain of the Christian life, as in that of missionary 
activity—in the teaching as in the guidance of the 
Church—he has left traces more profound than any 
other, and being the last of the Apostles, he is indeed 
first. Let us hear his own confession made in the 
holy boldness of humility, of all that he had suffered 
for Christ : “ Are they ministers of Christ?” he says, 
speaking of the false teachers at Corinth, “(I speak 
as a fool,) Tam more; in labors more abundant, in 


BOOK II.—FIRST CENTURY. 3907 


stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in 
deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty 
stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, 
once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a 
night and a day I have been in the deep ; in journey- 
ings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in 
perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the 
heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilder- 
ness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false breth- 
ren ; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, 
in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and 
nakedness. Besides those things that are without, 
that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the 
Churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak ? who 
is offended, and I burn not? If I must needs glory, 
I will glory of the things which concern mine in- 
firmities.” 2 Cor. xi, 23-30. 

Such was an apostle and a saint in the first cen- 
tury. It is not surprising that no power in the world 
could withstand the influence of lives like this. 


BOOK 2?) HIRD: 


PERIODS OF. ST; JOHN, OR CLOSE. OF THE APOSTGEIC 
AGE AND TRANSITION TO THE AGE FOLLOWING. 


CHAPTER I. 
THE FALL OF JERUSALEM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 


SI. Destruction of the Holy City. 


HIS period opens with a signal catastrophe, the 
consequences of which were most momentous 
to the Christian Church. Jerusalem, the Holy City, 
the religious center of Judaism, is reduced to ashes, 
and the Temple is but a smoking ruin. With it 
passes away the whole theocratic and priestly system 
of the old dispensation. Until this time the Church 
has been, so to speak, overshadowed by the Temple. 
Henceforward it has nothing more than a historic 
connection with Judaism, and a new era commences 
in its history. 

The Jewish people, as we know, never consented 
to bow beneath the yoke of their conquerors. There 
was a natural antipathy between the two nations, 
founded, perhaps, on a certain obstinacy and invinci- 
ble determination common to both. The Jews could 
not submit with the softness of the Asiatic, or the 
suppleness of the Greek, to foreign domination. They 
displayed as much perseverance in resistance as the 


400 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Romans in conquest. Their patriotism assumed the 
character of fanaticism, from its connection with their 
religious views. Their beliefs, which had become 
identified with earthly hopes and closely bound up 
with national pride, so far from inspiring them with 
patience and resignation, fostered rebellion in their 
hearts. It must be acknowledged, also, that to them 
the Roman dominion appeared only in its most hateful 
aspects. They had a succession of governors who 
were veritable brigands ; it seems that Judzea was 
regarded as a worthless province, and was given in 
prey to men laden with debts and vices, whose only 
object was to make a gain of a despised people. The 
Roman policy, usually so wise, and wont to deal con- 
siderately with the national faith and customs of a 
conquered people, was abandoned in the case of 
Judzea. Felix and Festus had indulged without re- 
straint in all the caprices and violences of a tyrannic 
rule, and their successors had outdone even the 
abominations of their government. Albinus, who 
succeeded Festus, made shameless traffic of the ad- 
ministration of justice, selling impurity to the most 
notorious criminals, “There is no manner of evil 
unpracticed by him,” * says Josephus. Gessius Flo- 
rus surpassed even Albinus. “It seemed,” says the 
same historian, “as though he had been sent as an 
executioner to put to death condemned criminals.” + 
The nominal kingship of Herod Agrippa laid no kind 
of check on these acts of injustice. It was not possible 


* Οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ἥντινα κακουργίας ἰδεάν παρέλιπεν. Josephus, ““ Bell. 
Juds;” ΠῚ xiv, τ᾿ 

t “Ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τιμωρίᾳ κατακρίτων πεμφθεὶς δήμιος. Josephus, “ Bell. 
Jud,” ΠΡ τ ν Ὁ Ζ: 


BOOK ὙΠ ΞΘ ΕΞ GENTURY: AOI 


that under such a rule peace should long be preserved. 
A circumstance, in itself unimportant, occasioned a 
terrible explosion, which had long been threatening 
and had already thrown out sparks in previous insur- 
rections. The synagogue of the Jews at Czesarea had 
been profaned by the Greeks of that city. Gessius 
Florus justified the act, and the Jews at Antioch and 
at Jerusalem immediately rose in a rebellion, which 
spread far and wide. It was stifled in the blood of 
thousands of Jews at Alexandria, at Damascus, and at 
Ceesarea. At Jerusalem.the Roman garrison was mas- 
sacred, and Eleazar, the son of the high priest, per- 
suaded the Levites not to receive the offering of any 
stranger. This was to forbid the sacrifice for Czesar, 
and such an act was equivalent to a declaration of war.* 
The rebellion was scarcely organized when Cestius 
Gallus, the governor of Syria, marched upon Jerusa- 
lem ; but he failed to enter the city, and was compelled 
to make an ignominious retreat. This triumph stimu- 
lated the fanaticism of the Jews, and carried it to its 
culminating point. Thenceforward it was beyond all 
control. Rome could not tolerate such contempt of 
her power. She sent Vespasian, one ‘of her best 
generals, with a large army to avenge the insult 
offered to the Roman eagles; and Galilee, after a 
sanguinary struggle, was subdued. 

The death of Nero and the elevation of Vespasian 
to the throne gave the Jews a momentary respite ; 
but the combat recommenced with augmented vigor, 
under the conduct of Titus, the son of the Emperor, 
(A. D. 68.) Jerusalem soon became the center of 

Ξ Τοῦτο δὲ ἣν τοῦ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους πολέμου καταβολή. Josephus, 
* Dell juds, 1 avai, ἂς 

26 


402 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


attack, and the siege of that city was laid by the most 
skillful general of the Roman armies. Thousands of 
Jews, who had assembled in the interval to celebrate 
the Passover, were shut up within the walls of the 
Holy City, and the presence of such numbers con- 
tributed to render the defense more difficult, and the 
final catastrophe more fearful. 

Every feature of this siege attests it to be a judg- 
ment of God. It is not an ordinary event of histery ; 
all the attendant circumstances are marked by an 
aggravation of suffering and woe; men appear to be 
ied by a mysterious hand, which urges them on to 
commit acts not within their original intention. They 
are the instruments of a chastisement as tremendous 
as was the crime to be visited. Even those who were 
its victims seem to have felt that it was so. The 
Jewish historian enumerates the omens by which the 
catastrophe had been foretold. Many of these are 
obviously the puerile fables and inventions of popular 
superstition ; but that very superstition reveals a 
strange presentiment of coming woe. According to 
Josephus, the Levites officiating in the Temple at the 
Feast of Pentecost heard a voice, which cried, “ Let 
us depart from this place.”’* Four years before the 
war, when the city was enjoying profound peace, a 
man named Jesus, the son of Ananias, a simple inhab- 
itant of the country, was heard crying in the Temple, 
at the Feast of Tabernacles: “A voice sounds from 
the east, from the west, and from the four winds of 
heaven. This voice is against Jerusalem and the 
Temple ; against husbands and wives ; this voice is 
against the whole nation.” They tried to silence 


= Josephus, ** Bell jud.;’2 V E,W; 2. 


" BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 403 


him ; he was scourged and variously ill-treated ; but 
still the words burst from his lips, “ Woe, woe, to 
the inhabitants of Jerusalem!” He never ceased 
his terrible denunciations till the war had broken out. 
In the siege he fell a victim, still uttering his melan- 
choly cry of woe.* 

The condition of the city at this time was indeed 
one of misery almost without a parallel. Pressed by 
foreign armies without, it was torn within by three 
hostile factions, each working for its own ends on 
popular fanaticism. It had first the faction of the 
Zealots, under the conduct of Eleazar, who, as their 
name imported, claimed to be the zealous defenders 
of the national cause, and under this pretext gave 
themselves up to all kinds of brigandage.t For a 
time this faction was strengthened by the Idumeans, 
whom Eleazar engaged to fight against the high priest 
Ananias ; but these in the end separated from their 
allies, and turned against them. John of Giscala, 
who had fled to Jerusalem after the taking of his 
native city, and had at first joined the party of Elea- 
zar, in his turn also organized a rival faction. 

The unhappy city, closely encompassed by the 
legions of Titus, became the scene of the most fright- 
ful civil war. It was pillaged and sacked by its own 
sons. That which one faction spared, fell into the 
hands of another, and the contending parties agreed 
only in crime. “Such was the terror among the 
people,” says Josephus, “that no one dare mourn for 
the dead or bury them. Tears must flow in secret, 
groans must be stifled, for such tokens of lamenta- 

* Ai, At. Josephus, “ Bell. Jud.,” VI, v, 3. 
7, Josephus, ** Bell.-Jud.,” DV, xili,;9. 


404. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


tion were visited with death. A little earth was 
hastily thrown over the corpses by night.”* “O 
wretched city,’ adds the historian, “what cause of 
reproach hast thou against the Romans, who have 
but purged thee from thine abominations! Thou 
wast no more the city of God, and thou couldst never 
again be such, since thou wast become the tomb of 
thy slaughtered children.” Josephus knew not that 
Jerusalem was expiating a yet darker crime, and that 
its soil, once sacred, had been stained by the blood 
of God. 

To the horrors of civil war those of famine were 
soon added. The small store of food was quickly 
consumed by the brigands, who went from house to 
house, laying hands on all they found, and roughly 
treating those who had nothing to give, in order to 
make them betray the supposed place of concealment. 
On the roofs were to be seen women and children, 
wasted with want, and uttering heart-rending groans ; 
the young people walked about the street pale and 
lifeless as specters, and constantly sinking to the. 
ground from exhaustion. Deep silence settled over 
the city ; night after night the dead were numbered 
by thousands, and all these sufferings were slight 
compared with the atrocities enacted by the brigands.t 

Natural feeling seemed extinguished, and the spec- 
tacle—horrible even to the vilest criminals—was seen 


*"Hy δὲ τοσαύτη τοῦ δήμου κὰταπληξις ὡς μηδένα τολμῆσαι μῆτε 
κλαίειν φανερῶς, μῆτε θὰπτειν. Josephus, ‘ Bell. Jud.,” V, iii, 3. 

+ Τί τηλικοῦτον, ὦ τλημονεστάτη πόλις, πέπονθας ὑπὸ 'Pwuaiwr, of 
σοῦ τὰ ἐμφύλια μύση περικαθαροῦντες εἰσῆλθον. Josephus, ““ Bell. 
πα Εν σα; Ὁ 

 Βαθεῖα δὲ τῆν πόλιν περιεῖχε σιγὴ καὶ νὺξ θανάτου γέμουσα, καὶ 
τούτων οἱ λησταὶ χαλεπώτεροι. Josephus, ** ΒΕ] 7. ν jaan 


BOOK MI.——FIRST- CENTURY: 405 


of a mother killing and eating her own child. The 
close of the drama was at hand. The city was almost 
completely invested by the Roman legions, who had 
erected an encompassing wall, and who, despite the 
fierce resistance of despair, daily gained ground. 
The outer city wall was broken down; the fortress 
Antonina, to the north of the Temple Mount, carried 
by assault. Both attack and defense were now con- 
centrated on the Temple itself. At length the day 
came when the conquering eagles floated from the 
Most Holy Place, and the sacrifices and ceremonies 
of the ancient law were for ever done away. This 
was on August roth, A.D. 70. The people had — 
crowded together in thousands on the holy hill, on 
the delusive promise of a false prophet, that that very 
day a sign of salvation should be given in the 
Temple.* The carnage only ceased when the victors 
were weary of slaying. 

The Temple, contrary to the orders of Titus, was 
destroyed by fire. -A soldier threw into it a burning 
brand. He did the audacious deed unauthorized, and 
actuated, says Josephus, by some demoniacal impulse. 
We know that that impulse had a higher cause, and 
that this obscure soldier was the minister of the jus- 
tice of God. In vain Titus gave orders for the fire 
to be extinguished ; no one listened ; on the contrary, 
every.one pressed forward to feed the flames, and 
they spread with alarming rapidity. Even Roman 
soldiers, “moved to madness by the demon of war,’ 
forgot their stern discipline. Who cannot see the 
hand of God in this strange accomplishment of a 


* Josephus, ‘ Bell. Jud.,” VI, xxv—xxx. 
t Δαιμονίῳ ὁρμῇ ὕλης. 1 Πολεμική τὶς ὁρμὴ λαϑροτέρα. 


406 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


righteous retribution? The roaring of the flames 
mingled with the cries of the dying, and from the 
height of the temple hill and the magnitude of the 
conflagration, the whole city appeared wrapt in fire. 
The lamentations of the Jews, as they witnessed the 
burning of their temple, were loud and terrible be- 
yond description, says Josephus. The cry was pro- 
portioned to the greatness of their grief* In the 
miserable remnant of God’s ancient people was thus 
fulfilled the mournful prophecy, which but a short 
time before they had treated as madness. The wail- 
ing of a city left desolate was the echo of the words, 
“ Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” The prayer of the mur- 
derers of Christ was heard ; his blood was upon them, 
upon their children, and upon the ruins of their tem- 
ple. God himself had pronounced the final sentence 
of Judaism.+ 

According to Eusebius and Epiphanes, the Chris- 
tians had left the Holy City at the commencement 
of the troubles, and retired to Pella, in Percea. Some 
of them returned into the city after its sack, when 
the storm was past.t 


§ II. Consequences to the Church of the Destruction 
of the Temple. 


The great truths maintained by St. Paul received 
emphatic sanction from this terrible event. God had 
cast into the balance the weight of his judgments. 
The destruction of Jerusalem was to have yet a 
further effect—it was to enlarge the views of the 

* Tov πάθους ἀξιά. Josephus, “ Bell. Jud.,” VI, iv, Ἐς 

{ See ΤΑΙ ὁ’ ΕΠ ΕΟ ΕΣ ΤΣ, τή: 


{ Eusebius, “ἘΠ ΞΕ Eccles.,” iii, 3; Epiphanes, ‘* De ponderibus 
et mensuris,”’ c. xviii. 


BOOK: ΜΞ ΤΕ Θ᾽ CENEURY. 407 


Christians as to the future of the Church, and to give 
indefinite expansion to the horizon of prophecy. 
They had until now been living in daily expectation 
of the end of the world, and the immediate return of 
Christ. In the prophetic picture drawn by the Mas- 
ter they had failed to apprehend the true perspective. 
They had recognized no distinction between the 
prophecies relating to the Holy City and those hav- 
ing reference to the final judgments of God; they 
had not grasped the idea that the condemnation 
about to fall on Jerusalem was a symbol of the judg- 
ments kept in store for the world. This confusion, 
so natural in the first period of the apostolic age, was 
no longer possible after Judaism had lost its religious 
center. It became then distinctly evident that a 
long future of conflict was before the Church. We 
have a striking proof of this enlargement of the views 
of prophecy as resulting from the fall of Jerusalem. 
Hegesippus relates that the Emperor Domitian, on 
questioning some Christians in Palestine, who were 
connected with the Saviour by ties of kindred, as to 
the kingdom of Christ and his return, received this 
reply: “ His kingdom is not an earthly kingdom or 
of this world, but a heavenly and angelic kingdom, 
which will come in the fullness of the ages, when he 
shall return to judge the quick and the dead.” * The 
second coming of Christ had then at this time ceased 
to be expected as immediate, and those whose hopes 
had been most set on its speedy realization had 
learned to defer indefinitely the appointed time. 


* Ob κοσμικὴ μὲν odd’ ἐπίγειος ἐπουράνιος δὲ καὶ ἀγγελικὴ τυγχάνει 
ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰῶνος γενησομένη. Routh, ‘ Reliquize Sacre,”’ i, 219 5 
Eusebius, ** Hist. Eccles.,” ii, 32. 


408 EARLY YEARS OF THE: CHRISTIAN-CHURCH. 


This revelation, so clear and positive, of the pro- 
longation of the period of struggling and suffering, 
combined with the destruction of the ancient form of 
worship, to which so many of the Christians still 
clung, tended to promote the more settled and per- 
manent organization of the Church. In fact, from 
the year 70, there is a very marked advance toward 
a definite form of government and of worship. The 
Church now realizes its position as the true Israel of 
God, the religious society approved by him, which 
has taken the place of the theocracy ; and it is thus 
led to organize institutions which shall permanently — 
substitute those of the past. There was danger, 
however, lest in replacing these the Church should 
be led into imitating them. The necessity which 
was felt, after the destruction of the temple, of a fixed 
and clearly-defined organization, might lead to a res- 
urrection of Judaism under a new form. The letter 
of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians gives suffi- 
cient evidence of the existence of such a tendency at 
the close of the first century. He says, “ We ought 
to do all that the Lord has commanded us to do at 
the times appointed. He has commanded us to pre- 
sent offerings and to celebrate worship, not irregu- 
larly and irreverently, but at the times and seasons 
by him determined. He has revealed, by his most 
holy will,in what piaces and by what men the various 
acts of religious service can be acceptably performed. 
Special functions are ascribed to the high priest; a 
particular place is set apart for the priests, and the 
Levites have their distinct offices. Let each one of 
you then, my brethren, render honor to God, in his 
special order, with a good conscience, and without 


BOOK HEL=—FIRST CENTURY. 409 


infringing the rule of his ministry. The sacrifices 
were not offered in all places, but at Jerusalem alone ; 
and in Jerusalem, at the altars in the Temple. Take 
heed, my brethren, lest we who have been honored 
with a wider knowiedge should bring upon ourselves 
severer chastisements by violating established rules.’’* ' 

It would be absurd to infer from this passage that 
Clement, a disciple of St. Paul, hoids the perpetuity 
of the Levitical worship, but we can clearly mark in 
it the tendency to transplant into the Church the 
precise organization of the old law, and to introduce 
the fixed order of Judaism. Evidently such notions 
can only have arisen after the destruction of the Tem- 
ple. The Christians, accustomed to regard that as 
their religious center, were filled with a sort of alarm 
after its fall; they felt about for other props; they 
began to be afraid of the great freedom which, until 
then, had prevailed in the worship and government 
of the Church; and thus the event which was de- 
signed to set a seal on the spirituality of the new 
covenant helped, by a not unnatural perversion, to 
bring it back under the yoke of the old. 

We cannot, however, admit, with an illustrious 
German divine, that in consequence of this great 
event a second Council was held at Jerusalem, at 
which the surviving Apostles met and authoritatively 
instituted the episcopate. A fact of such importance 
would not have escaped the ancient historians of the 
Church. The early Fathers would have made more 
than vague allusions to it. Besides, none of the pas- 
sages adduced in support of this hypothesis are at all 
conclusive. Such an apostolical council appears to 

* Clement of Rome, “Ad Corinth.,” 4. 


410 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


us inconceivable in the first century ; it would sup- 
pose a wide modification of the very idea of the apos- 
tolate, and a radical revolution in then existing eccle- 
siastical institutions.* 


* The hypothesis to which we allude was brought forward by Rothe 
(‘‘ Anfange,” p. 311,) and supported by Thiersch, (‘* Apost. Zeit.,”’ p. 
275.) Rothe takes his ground on the following passage: Μετὰ τὴν 
Ἰακώβου μαρτυρίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτίκα γενομενην ἄλωσιν τῆς 'ἱἱἹερουσαλημ, 
λόγος κατέχει τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν τοῦ Κυρὶου μαθητῶν τοὺς εἰσέτι 
τῷ βιῷ λειπυμενους ἐπὶ ταῦτα πανταχόθεν συνελθεῖν. ‘* After the 
martyrdom of James and the taking of Jerusalem, it is said that the 
Apostles of the Lord, and his disciples who were yet alive, assembled 
together.” According to Eusebius, the object of this assembly was 
the choice of a successor to James. Rothe maintains that the oppor- 
tunity thus offered was embraced for the institution of the episcopate. 
But, without dwelling on the hypothetical character given by Euse- 
bius himself to this statement, it affords no support to Rothe’s idea. 
In fact, according to Eusebius, who is only the echo of Hegesippus, 
the foundation of the episcopate is to be traced back, not to Simon, 
but to James himself, of whom he speaks positively as a bishop. He 
cannot, then, have intended to speak of the foundation of the episco- 
pate after the death of James. The second passage brought forward 
by Kothe is taken from the fragment of Irenzeus edited by Pfaff. It 
is as follows : Οἱ ταῖς δευτέραις τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεσι παρηκολουθη- 
κότες ἴσασι τὸν Κύριον νέαν προσφορὰν ἐν τῇ καινῇ διαθήκῃ καθεστηκέναι 
κατὰ τὸν Μαλαχίαν τὸν προφήτην. ‘ Those who follow the second in- 
junctions of the Apostles know that the Lord appointed a new sacri- 
fice in the new covenant, according to the Prophet Malachi.” Rothe 
supposes these second injunctions to proceed from the second Council 
at Jerusalem. But there is no evidence that these second injunctions 
are of a different date from the first ; there is nothing more implied 
than a simple classification of the injunctions of the Apostles. In 
any case, the passage gives no indication of an episcopate. The 
third passage is taken from Clement of Rome. ‘* The Apostles,” we 
read in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, xliv, ‘‘ knowing from the 
Lord Jesus Christ that there would be disputes in the Church as to the 
name of bishop, and, having a perfect prevision of the fact, appointed 
elders, and subsequently gave directions that when these died other 
tried men should succeed them.” Καὶ μεταξῦ ἐπινομήν δεδώκασιν 
ὅπως ἐὰν κοιμηθῶσιν διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμέι οἱ ἄνδρες τὴν 


BOOK "HI-—F inst CENTURY. Alt 


Another consequence of the fall of Jerusalem was 
the tracing of a broad line of demarkation between 
Judzeo-Christianity and the Church.* So long as the 
Temple was standing the Christians of Palestine might 
suppose that it was the will of God that they should 
continue to practice all the rites of Judaism, as de- 
cided by the Council at Jerusalem. This could no 
longer be the case when the Temple was overthrown. 
The enforced cessations of sacrifices is a momentous 
fact, which it has been vainly endeavored to explain 
away.f This event could not fail to produce a very 
deep impression on the more liberal section of the 
Church at Jerusalem, which still retained the tone of 
feeling imparted by James. This party recognized it 


λειτουργίαν αὕτων. Rothe lays stress on the word ἐπινομήν, which 
he translates testament, testamentary disposition, on the authority 
of a single passage in Hesychius, who assimilates ἐπίνομος to κληρον- 
ὃμος He thus translates the passage from Clement: ‘* The Apostles 
made this testamentary disposition, that when they (the Apostles) 
should be dead, other tried men should succeed to their office.”? To 
this we reply, the κοιμηθῶσιν does not relate to apostles, but to elders. 
The dispute at Corinth related not to the apostolic office, but to the 
office of elders, and it arose on the occasion of the death of the first 
elders appointed in that Church. Still further, the root of the word 
ἐπινομῆ is νόμος, law. It is, therefore, much better translated, com- 
manadment, decision. We read in an old Latin translation, ‘‘ Hanc 
formam tenentes.”” ‘‘ Forma” is here the equivalent of decision or 
ordinance. It is not necessary to have recourse to the arbitrary cor- 
rection of Bunsen, who substitutes ἐπιμονῆν for ἐπινομῆν, (Ignatius 
und seine Zeit.,”’ p. 98,) and who regards it as the consecration for 
life to the office of elder. We translate the passage thus: ‘The 
Apostles determined that when the first elders should be dead others 
should succeed them.” (See Ritschl, ‘* Altcath. Kirche,” pp. 424-429.) 

* See, on this point, ‘‘ Das apostolische und nachapostolische Zeit- 
alter,” by Lechler, of Stuttgart, pp. 436-4441 ; Ritschl, ““ Altcath.,”’ 
238-256. 

+ Schwegler, work quoted, pp. 192—308.- 


412 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


as the decree of God, finally abrogating the old wor- 
ship. Under the influence of Simon, the cousin of 
James, and a man probably of like spirit, these Jewish 
Christians were gradually brought into closer fellow- 
ship with those of Gentile origin. The hatred of the 
Jews, who were eager to fulminate excommunications 
against the Christians, and to put them under the 
ban of their synagogues so soon as these were recon- 
stituted, contributed not a little to enlarge the spirit 
of the Christians of Palestine.* In fact, a short time 
after the destruction of Jerusalem a new Sanhedrim 
was formed at Jabna, which endeavored to rally 
around it the remnants of the Jewish people. This 
Sanhedrim assumed the most hostile attitude toward 
the Christians, whom it called Mineans. The Rabbi 
Tarpho said, “The Gospels deserve to be burned ; 
paganism is less dangerous than the Christian sects, 
for the former through ignorance does not receive 
the truths of Judaism, while the Christians know and 
yet reject. Salvation may be more readily found in 
the idol temples than in the assemblies of the Chris- 
tians.’” The Jews were forbidden to eat with the 
Christians, and a form of excommunication against 
them was introduced by the Rabbi Gamaliel into the 
daily prayers. Its import was, that there was no hope 
for apostates. No gulf could be deeper than that 
by which the Church was thus divided .from the 
synagogue. 

In the commencement of the following century we 
find a flourishing Church, without any Judaistic tend- 
encies, at A‘lia-Capitolina, a Roman colony founded 
on the ruins of Jerusalem, to which, by a decree of 


* Lechler, p. 440. 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 413 


the Emperor, no Jews were admissible. Τί is certain 
that a large number of Christians of Jewish origin 
were among its inhabitants, and that these associated 
without distinction with Gentiles by birth. There 
could be no stronger proof of the decay of Judao- 
Christianity.* These same Christians were, as we 
shall presently show, sacrificed in large numbers by 
Bar Cocheba in the violent persecution which he 
instigated against the Church. We freely admit, 
however, that all were not equally enlightened. The 
existence in the second century of a Nazarite sect 
distinct from the Ebonites, and treated with tolerance 
by Justin Martyr, proves that a section of the Jews 
in Palestine, without breaking with the Church, still 
retained an exaggerated attachment to the ancient 
forms.t They could not: be charged with any doc- 
trinal error ; they did not give formal expression to 
their views ; but they refused to cast off the Mosaic 
yoke, even after God had himself broken it. The 
Church at Jerusalem contained within its bosom 
violent and fanatical men, who even before the siege 
of the Holy City had begun to fall away from it. 
These, far from being enlightened by that event, 
became yet more extravagant in their Judaizing 
notions. Previously, it might have been supposed 
that they adhered to the old worship rather from 
position than conviction ; but from the year 70 they 
substituted for such a modified and transitional form 
of Judaism, one more decided and emphatic. Thus 
they became further and further alienated from apos- 


* Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, iv, 6; Ritschl, work quoted, 
page 247. 
Ὁ Justin, *‘ Dial. cum Tryph.,” Ὁ. xlvii. 


414. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


tolic doctrine, and in combination with the Jewish 
sects, especially with the Essenes, they constituted a 
distinct and avowed heresy. To this period, then, 
we, with Irenzus, trace the obscure commence- 
ment of Ebionitism, although the name is of later 
date.* 


* Téyove ἡ ἀρχὴ τούτου μετὰ Ἱεροσολύμων ἅλωσιν. Irenzeus, xxx, 2. 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 415 


CHAPTER, HI. 
ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE AND PROPHET. 


ek Lae or St Foun 


S in the first period of the apostolic age the 
principal part is enacted by St. Peter, and in 

the second by St. Paul, so in the third period the 
paramount influence is that of St. John. His natural 
disposition and peculiar gifts account for this delay 
in the exercise of his apostleship. With a soul medi- 
tative and mystical, he had neither the impetuous 
zeal of Peter nor the indefatigable activity of Paul. 
On him Christianity had wrought most intensively ; 
he had penetrated into the deepest meaning of the 
teaching of Christ ; or rather, he had read the very 
heart of the Master. It was his vocation to preserve 
the most precious jewels in the treasury of Christ’s 
revelations, and to bring to light the most sacred and 
sublime mysteries of the Gospel. In order to fulfill 
this mission, he must needs wait until the Church 
was ready for such exalted teaching. The first storms 
of division must subside. Just as the prophet heard 
the still small voice, which was the voice of God, only 
* See Liicke’s excellent Introduction to his ‘*‘ Commentary on the 
Fourth Gospel.” Bonn, 1840. See also the Introduction to Tho- 
luck’s ‘‘ Commentary on the same Gospel,” and the passages referring 
to St. John in the works already quoted. We cite also an admirable 


sketch of St. John in Adolphe Monod’s Sermon on ‘La Parole 
Vivante.”” Paris, 1858. 


4τ6 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


after the sound of the tempest and the roaring of the 
thunder, so the Apostle of supreme love could not 
speak till a calm had succeeded to the storm stirred 
up by the polemics of St. Paul. His work was not 
more important, nor attested with a diviner seal, than 
that of the great controversialist of the apostolic age ; 
the two are closely connected, and the latter is the 
natural sequence to the earlier. The revelation of 
love could not be complete till Judzeo-Christianity 
had finally succumbed, and had carried with it in its 
fall all the barriers within which it had sought to 
limit the grace of God. So true is this, that we find 
St. Paul himself sounding the first notes of the hymn 
of love, and thus inaugurating the work of St. John. 
The former sowed in tears, the latter reaped in joy. 
The one resisted to blood ; the other received for the 
Church the prize of the well-fought fight. This 
diversity in the missions of the two Apostles is mani- 
fested in the diversity of the methods employed by 
them, in order to establish the truth, of which they 
are the organs. While St. Paul wields the weapons 
of warfare in his irresistible and impassioned dialec- 
tics, St. John is satisfied with expounding doctrine. 
He does not dispute; he affirms. It is clear that he 
has been led into the possession of the truth bya path 
widely divergent from that of St. Paul—by the path 
of intuition, of direct vision. His language has the 
calmness of contemplation. He speaks in short sen- 
tences, strikingly simple in form ; but that simplicity, 
like a quiet lake, holds in its depths the reflection of 
the highest heaven. ‘“ He has filled the whole earth 
with his voice,” says St. John Chrysostom, “not by 
its mighty reverberations, but by the divine grace, 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY 417 


which dwelt upon his lips. That which is most ad- 
mirable is, that this great voice is neither harsh nor 
violent, but soft and melting as harmonious music.’’* 

It is very far from the truth, however, to regard 
St. John as the type of feminine gentleness, as he is 
represented in legend and in painting, which is only 
another form of legend. The ancient Church had a 
far worthier conception of him when it gave to John 
the Evangelist, the symbol of the eagle soaring to the 
sun, as though to signify that the mightiest and most 
royal impulse—that which carries farthest and high- 
est—is love. The soul of the Apostle of Ephesus 
was as vigorous as ‘that of Paul. He was called the 
Son of Thunder before grace had subdued his natural 
vehemence ; and something of this early ardor always 
remained with him. In proportion to his love of 
truth was his hatred of error and heresy. Such love 
is a consuming fire, and when it sees its object de- 
spised or wronged, it is as ardent in its indignation as 
in itsadoration. Thetruth which St. John loved and 
served was no mere abstract doctrine; it was to him 
incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. He was ever 
the beloved disciple of the Master, the disciple ad- 
mitted to his most tender and intimate friendship ; 
and the Church has ever pictured him in the attitude 
in which he is represented in the gospels at the Last 
Supper, leaning on the bosom of the Lord. It was 
by the power of love so strong and deep that he was 
enabled to fulfill his mission of conciliation, and to 
harmonize all the apparent contradictions of the apos- 


* TO δὴ θαυμαστὸν ὅτι οὕτω μεγάλη οὗσα ἡ βοὴ, οὐκ ἔστι τραχεῖά τις 
οὐδὲ ἀηδὴς, ἀλλὰ πάσης μουσικῆς ἁρμονίας ἡδίων. Chrysost., ““ Procem. 
in Homel. in Joh.” 


27 


A418 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


tolic age in the rich synthesis of his doctrine. Let 
us now inquire how he was prepared for this glorious 
vocation. 

John was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman of the 
Lake of Gennesaret, who dwelt at Bethsaida. Matt. 
iv, 21; Mark i, 19; Matt. x, 2. It is not proved that 
he was actually poor, as Chrysostom maintained, for 
his father had “hired servants ;” (Mark i, 20;) his 
mother was among the women who ministered to 
Jesus of their substance, (Luke viii, 3,) and John 
himself had a house of his own. John xix, 27. Be 
this as it may, however, he was of obscure and humble 
origin. Possibly,as some commentators have thought, 
he may have owed his first religious impressions to 
his mother, who was among the earliest followers of 
the Saviour. John, as well as Peter, was a disciple 
of the Forerunner ; the preaching of John the Baptist 
answered to the needs of his heart, which was eagerly 
waiting for the hope of Israel. We have already nar- 
rated, on the occasion of the calling of Peter, the cir- 
cumstances under which this Apostle and John were 
led to follow Christ. John i, 37. They did not at 
once leave all to be his disciples. The Master gave 
time for their first impressions to deepen before he 
called them to forsake family and fishing-nets, and to 
come after him. Matt. iv, 18-22; Mark i, πὸ 20; 
Luke v, 1-11. Johnappears to have been very young 
at this time; his grave and thoughtful nature pecul- 
larly fitted him to receive the education which Jesus 
Christ imparted to his disciples, and which con- 
sisted in impressing on them the features of his own 
likeness. 

John, Peter, and James were, as we know, admitted 


BOGE ΕΙΣ ΝΞ SENTURY. 419 


to special intimacy with the Saviour.* There is no 
reason to suppose that John had a much clearer com- 
prehension than the other disciples of the doctrine 
of Christ. He shared their carnal conceptions of the 
earthly kingdom of Messiah, (Matt. xv, 20—-28,) and 
exhibited sometimes the narrow spirit of the sectary. 
Luke ix, 49, 50. His invocation of wrath upon the 
Samaritans displays an alloy of human _ passion, 
blended with his affection for the Saviour. Luke 
ix, 54. But this affection was so real and true, that it 
was sure to lead to all the developments of the relig- 
ious life. He proved his love in a way not to be 
mistaken at the time of Christ’s passion.t He fol- 
lowed him into the court of the high priest, and even 
to the foot of the cross. John xix, 26. He is the only 
one of the Apostles who witnessed the last sufferings 
of Christ ; and possibly for this reason, he was chosen 
to render the most emphatic testimony to his eternal 
glory in the bosom of the Father. 

We can well imagine what an ineffaceable image 
of unparalleled love and sorrow would be left on the 
soul of John by this scene. Who can tell with what 
feelings he caught those last words of the God-man, 
spoken almost in his parting agony, which committed 
to him the mother of his Lord asa sacred legacy. 
John xix, 27. He was also one of the first to see the 
risen Christ. John xx, 8. All these memories, and 
many more connected with them, were to be succes- 

* Matt. xvii, I; xxvi, 37. Lenain de Tillemont ascribes Christ’s 
preference for John to the fact that he had remained unmarried. 
(‘‘ Mémoires,” i, p. 330.) Arbitrary criticism can go no further than 
this. 


t+ It has been justly remarked that while Peter was rather φιλό- 
χρίστος, John was pre-eminently φιλοϊήσους 


420 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


sively illuminated by the Holy Spirit till they should | 
form in the mind of John a perfect whole. But he 
was not himself capable, immediately after the Pente- 
costal effusion of the Spirit, of receiving, in all its 
fullness, this divine revelation. 

During the earlier period of the apostolic age we 
see John by Peter's side lending him efficient help, 
but leaving to him the initiative in speech and action. 
Acts iii, 1; vili, 14, 25. He enjoyed much consider- 
ation, but did not exert a preponderating influence ; 
nothing is recorded of his share in the Council at 
Jerusalem, though he appears to have been present. 
Gal. 11,9. At this time he still adhered to the Mosaic 
law, as did Peter and James—a course of conduct 
confirmed by the decisions of the conference at Jeru- 
salem.* There are no means of ascertaining in what 
year he left that city ; but he was no longer there in 
the year 60, when Paul made his last visit. Acts xx1, 
17, 18. Nicephorus asserts that he remained at Jeru- 
salem until the death of Mary ; but this gives us no 
exact information, inasmuch as the date of that event 
is entirely unknown.f There is one whole period of 
the life of the Apostle of which we possess no details. 
His supposed journeys to Rome, and into the country 
of the Parthians, are wholly legendary.t But if we 


* “ Apostoli Petrus et Jacobus et Johannes religiose agebant circa 
dispositionem legis quae est secundum Moysem.”  Irenzus, “ C. 
Heeres.,”’ ili, 12,.edit. Feuardentius. 

+ Nicephorus, ‘‘ Histor. Eccles.,”’ ii, 42. 

1 This is the opinion of Lenain de Tillemont, i, 355. The legend 
of the preaching of St. John to the Parthians originated in a false 
reading of the title of the second Epistle, as ‘* Ad Parthos.” (August., 
“Quest. Evangel.,” ii, 37.) See Liicke’s ‘‘ Commentary on the 
Ipistles of John,” p. 28. 


ΒΟΘῈΞ Hi,—-—-FIRST GENTURY. 421 


have no precise records of his life during these years, 
his writings give evidence that the time was not lost 
in reference to his own development. He learned to 
contemplate one aspect of the person and doctrine 
of his Master, which had not presented itself to any 
of the other Apostles with equal distinctness ; this 
was the profound mysterious fact of His eternal divin- 
ity, his pre-existence, and incarnation. If we wonder 
at these differences in the manner of apprehending 
Christ among his immediate disciples—differences, 
however, which are never contradictions, but are dis- 
tinguished by the predominance of one or another 
element, in conceptions substantially identical—we 
must bear in mind the important influence of moral 
affinity in connection with religious truth. The eye 
of the soul, like the eye of the body, has a wider or 
narrower range. “ There are,’ says Origen, “various 
forms under which the Word reveals himself to his 
disciples according to the degree of light in each, 
which is proportioned to the measure of their progress 
in holiness. If he manifested himself on the Mount 
of Transfiguration in a form much more sublime than 
that in which he appeared to those who had remained 
at the foot of the mountain and could not reach its 
summit, the reason was, that those who were below 
had not eyes able to behold the glory and divinity of 
the transfigured Word.’* St. John was carried by 
the Spirit of God up to these blessed heights ; thus 
he saw and heard that which others around him saw 
not nor heard. The higher he rose in faith and love, 


* Eiol γὰρ δίαφοροι οἷονεὶ τοῦ λόγου μορφαὶ καθὼς ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰς 
ἐπιστήμην ἀγομένων φαίνεται ὁ λόγος ἀναλογον τῇ ἕξει τοῦ εἰσαγομένου. 
Origen, “ Contra Cels.,” iv, 16, edit. Delarue, i, p. 511. 


“995 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


the more he beheld of the glory and the Godhead of 
the transfigured Word, and penetrated deeper and 
deeper into the meaning of the sayings which he had 
received from the Master’s lips, as one by one they 
became illuminated with heavenly light. 

We are free to suppose that the period of his life 
about which we have no information, was devoted to 
climbing that spiritual Tabor on the summit of which 
the only and eternal Son, who is in the bosom of the 
Father, was to appear to him in all the glory of his 
divinity. The Apostle, like Mary, pondered in his 
heart all that he knew of his Master ; in the silence 
of devotion he listened to his living voice, and under 
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, discerned more 
and more of the mystery of his being. St. Augustine 
says: “While the three other evangelists remained 
below with the man Jesus, and spoke little of his 
divinity, John, as though impatient of treading the 
earth, rose from the very first words of His gospel, 
not only above the bounds of earth, air, and sky, but 
above the angels and celestial powers, into the very 
presence of Him by whom all things were made. 
Not in vain do the gospels tell us that he leaned on 
the bosom of the Saviour at the Passover feast. He 
drank in secret at that divine spring: “ De 2//o pectore 
722 secreto bibebat.’* All the life of St. John, during 
the period when scarcely a trace of him is to be found 
in the apostolic Church, is summed up in these words. 

It is certain that in this interval the Apostle must 
have come in contact with the philosophic culture so 
widely diffused at the time among the Jewish syna- 
gogues. ‘The comparative correctness of his language 


* August., ‘‘ Tractat. 36 in Johann.” 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 423 


is itself a proof that this was the case; it is also 
beyond question that he borrowed from the modified 
and infinitely diversified Platonism of his age the ex- 
pression “the Word,” which is evidently of Greek 
origin. \ Divine truth can speak in all tongues—in 
the polished tongue of the learned as well as in the 
simple and rude idiom of the common people ; but 
through whatever medium conveyed, its substance is 
still “the things which it hath not entered into the 
heart of man to conceive.” 

The time was to come when the Apostle would 
emerge from his obscurity, and would in his turn 
exert a wide and deep influence over the Churches 
of the first century. According to the testimony of 
Clement of Alexandria and of Irenaeus, St. John, 
after the death of St. Peter and St. Paul, took up his 
abode at Ephesus.* No city could have been better 


~ 


3 Ἐν ’Edéow τῆς Ἀσίας διατρίβων. (Irenzeus, “ Ady. Heeres.,” 11], 
I, 3.) The existence of ancther John at Ephesus, called John the 
Presbyter, has been called in question, though he appears to have 
played an important part in primitive tradition. This doubt has 
arisen from the silence of Polycrates (Eusebius, ‘‘ Hist. Eccles.,” 
iii, 31) and of Irenzeus, (“ Adv. Heres.,” v, 33,) who make no men- 
tion of him. The testimony of Jerome is also appealed to, who 
asserts that the two tombs, which, according to tradition, were sacred 
to the memory of John the Apostle and John the Presbyter, were 
both really consecrated to the Apostle John. ‘* Nonnulli putant duas 
memorias ejusdem Johannis evangeliste esse.” St. Jerome, “Catal. 
Script. Eccl.,”? 9. The evidence of Papias, however, seems to us 
conclusive in favor of the existence of John the Elder. “41 inquired,” 
he says, ‘‘ what had been said by the Elders—Thomas, James, Peter, 
or John—and what say the other disciples of the Lord, (7 τις ἕτερος 
τῶν τοῦ Κυρίου μαθήτων,) as Ariston and John the Presbyter.” Euse- 
bius, iii, 39. Clearly Papias distinguishes John the Apostle from 
John the Presbyter. Nothing can be ascertained about the latter 
beyond the fact that he lived. See Licke, “Comment. in Johann.,” 


i, 25-31. 


424. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


chosen as a center from which te watch over the 
Churches, and follow closely the progress of heresy. 
At Ephesus the Apostle was in the center of Paul’s 
mission-field in Asia Minor, and not far from Greece. 
Christianity had achieved splendid conquests in the 
flourishing cities of that country ; but it had also en- 
countered dangerous enemies. It was there that 
false Gnosticism first of all showed itself, and perpet- 
ually sought new adherents. The Apostle Paul had 
spoken before his death of its rapid progress. In his 
Second Epistle to Timothy he seems himself to point 
out Ephesus as the city most threatened with heresy, 
where, consequently, the presence of an apostle would 
be especially needed. St. John made this city his 
settled abode, without, however, devoting himself ex- 
clusively to the important Church there founded. 
Ephesus was the center of his apostolic activity, but 
that activity extended over a wide area. Clement of 
Alexandria tells us how the Apostle visited the 
Churches, presiding at the election of the bishops, 
and restoring order where it had been disturbed. To 
one of these journeys of apostolic visitation belongs 
the striking incident recounted by the same author. 
This incident helps us more than many explanations 
to understand why John was the disciple whom 
Jesus loved. 

“Arrived in a town not far from Ephesus, after 
having comforted and exhorted the brethren, he ob- 
served a young man, tall of stature, of a noble coun- 
tenance and ardent spirit. Addressing himself to 
the Bishop, John said: “ I commit that young man to 
thy charge, and call the Church and Jesus Christ to 
witness that I do so.” The Elder at first conscien- 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 425 


tiously fulfilled his task ; he received the young man 
into his house, instructed him, and at length admin- 
istered baptism to him. The young man allowed 
himself to be drawn away into immorality, then into 
theft. He was obliged to flee from the town, and 
became the chief of a band of brigands. A short 
time after,” adds Clement, “ John had again occasion 
to visit that Church. After fulfilling his mission, he 
turned to the Bishop, and said, ‘ Restore to me the 
trust which I and the Lord committed to thee before 
the Church over which thou art overseer.’ The Bishop 
did not at once understand to what the Apostle re- 
ferred. ‘I ask,’ said John, ‘for the young man 
whose soul I intrusted to thee. * ‘ He is dead,’ ex- 
claimed the Elder, with many sighs and tears. ‘ How 
dead?’ asked the Apostle. ‘Dead to God; he fell 
away and was forced to flee for his crimes ; he is now 
a brigand among our mountains, instead of a member 
of our Church.’ Hearing these words, the Apostle 
rent his clothes and smote on his head, crying: 
‘What a guardian have I left over the soul of my 
brother!’ He quitted the Church, made his way to 
the mountains, and gave himself up to the robbers. 
“The young man recognized the Apostle, and was 
about to make his escape. John, forgetting his old 
age, ran after him, exclaiming: ‘My son, why dost 
thou flee from thy father? I am feeble and far ad- 
. vanced in years; have pity on me, my son; fear not. 
There is yet hope of salvation for thee. I will stand 
for thee before the Lord Christ. If need be, I will 
gladly die for thee, as he died for us. Stop, stop, 
*” Aye δὲ τὴν πὰρακαταθήκην ἀπόδος ἡμῖν, ἣν ἐγώ τε Kal ὁ σωτήρ Toe 


παρακατεθέμεθα ἐπὶ τῆς εκκλεσίας ἧς προκαθέζῃ μάρτυρος. 


426 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


believe, it is Christ who has sent me.’* The young 
man listened, with his eyes cast down to the earth ; 
then flung away his weapons and burst into tears. 
Throwing his arms around the aged saint, he implored 
his pardon with a flood of tears which were to him as 
a second baptism. The Apostle raised him up; he 
prayed and fasted with him; he completely subdued 
him by his words, and did not leave him till he had 
restored him to the Church, a great example of peni- 
tence, and a living trophy of Christian love.” Never 
since the time of Christ has the parable of the lost 
sheep received so perfect an application.f 

It has been asserted that by his example and prac- 
tice at Ephesus, John confirmed the principles of 
Judzeo-Christianity, and adopted them in the govern- 
ment of the Churches.{ Such a supposition is alto- 
gether inadmissible, if we accept his gospel and 
epistles as authentic. Importance has been attached 
to the singular assertion of Polycrates that John was 
invested with pontifical attributes ; the error here is 
in giving a severely literal sense to a figurative ex- 
pression.§ It is evident from his writings, and also 


* Ti μὲ φεύγεις, τέκνον, TOV σαυτοῦ πατέρα, τὸν γῦμνον, τὸν γέροντα; 
ἐλέησόν με, τέκνον, μὴ φοθου: ἔχεις ἔτι ζωῆς ελπίδα, ἐγὼ Χριστῷ δώσω 
λογόν ὑπὲρ σοῦ: ἄν δέῃ, τὸν σον θάνατον ἑκὼν ὕπομενω, ὡς, ὁ Κύριος τὸν 
ὑπὲρ ἡμων: ὑπὲρ σοῦ τὴν ψυχὴν, ἀντιδώσω τὴν ἐμῆν. Στήθι πιστεύων. 
Χριστός μὲ ἀπέστειλεν. 

+ Clement of Alexandria: Τὶς ὁ σωζομενὸς πλοῦσιος, 39; Eusebius, 
*¢ Fast. Hecles..” iy, 

{ Schwegler, “‘ Nachapost. Zeit.,” i, 145; ii, 249. 

§ "Ere 0& καὶ Ἰωάννης ὁ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναπέσων ὃς ἐγενήθη 
ἱερεῦς τὸ πεταλον πεφορήηκως καὶ μάρτυς καὶ διδασκαλος. Eusebius, 
** Hist. Eccles.,’’ ili, 31. A very little reflection removes all dubious- 
ness from this passage. If John had been a Judaizing Christian, how 
could he have assumed the insignia of the high priest’s office in oppo- 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. AQT 


from his immediate disciples, that John continued to 
guide the Church along the way opened by Paul, and 
raised it even to a greater height above the special- 
ties of Judaism. We shall also observe, in speaking 
of the ecclesiastical constitution at the close of the 
first century, that there is no foundation for ascrib- 
ing to him the episcopal organization, properly so 
called. 

It is not possible to determine accurately at what 
date St. John suffered for the Gospel. The “ Fathers” 
differ as to the time of his banishment to Patmos, 
We are inclined to place it shortly after the death of 
St. Peter and St. Paul.* His exile may have been 
protracted during some years. The Revelation ap- 
pears to us to have been written long before the 
gospel. It carries us into a period very little re- 
moved from the fearful persecution under Nero, which 
was the great typal war of Antichrist against Christ. 
The mode of thought, the form of language, the 
prominent ideas, the historical allusions, all suggest 


sition to the most positive prescriptions of thelaw. It is evident that 
this expression, which is certainly singular, cannot be taken in a lit- 
eral sense, but that it relates to the government of the Churches by 
St. John during this entire period. St. Jerome, who falls into the 
error of taking literally the expression of Polycrates, sets aside the idea 
of a Jewish priesthood : “‘ Qui supra pectus Domini recubuit et pon- 
tifex ejzs fuit.”” ‘*De Script. Eccles.,” 45. 

* Licke even asserts that it is not proved that John was directly 
the subject of persecution. The passage, Rev. i, 9, ‘‘I was in the 
isle which is called Patmos for the word of God” (διὰ tov λογου τοῦ 
Θεοῦ) may, he says, refer to a simple mission for preaching. Luiicke, 
** Offenb. Johannes,” p. 815. John, however, declares in the same 
passage that he had a share in the sufferings of those to whom he 
writes, (συγκοινωνὸς ἐν TH θλιψει.) We regard as wholly legendary 
Tertullian’s assertion that under Nero John was thrown into a bath 
of boiling oil. Tertullian, ‘‘ De Preescript.,” 36. 


428 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


this date ; and, in the absence of any decisive ex- 
ternal evidence, we are free to give full weight to the 
internal.* 

With reference to the gospel and epistles, tradition 
is agreed in the date affixed tothem. These writings 
are the slowly-ripened fruit of all the labors of the 
apostolic age; but, at the same time, like every 
other good gift, they come down from heaven, and 
bear the undeniable seal of inspiration. They clearly 
belong to a period when heresy was rife, and espe- 
cially those forms of heresy which, denying the cor- 
poreal reality of the Saviour’s sufferings, contained 
the first germ of Docetism. John did not, indeed, de- 
sign his gospel to be a systematic refutation of the 
errors of Cerinthus, or of any other heretic. He was 
satisfied with setting forth true Christian Gnosticism 
in opposition to false oriental or Judaizing Gnosti- 
cism ; and his gospel is beautifully characterized by 
Clement of Alexandria as pre-eminently the gospel 
of the Spirit.t We should do injustice to the fourth 
gospel were we to regard it as a merely polemical 
writing, or as only the complement of the synoptics. 
The latter supposition cannot be reconciled with the 
admirable unity of composition to be observed in the 
Gospel of John. It is full of a creative inspiration. 
The style is altogether unlike that of a mere com- 
mentator, who is completing by a gloss a text already 
given. John epitomises in his gospel the substance 
of his preaching at Ephesus, and in the other 
Churches of Asia Minor.f According to Jerome, he 
had no intention at first of preserving his discourses 


* See Note L, at the end of the volume. 
+ Eusebius, ‘‘ Hist. Eccles.,” vi, 14. + Did: ? anes 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 2 429 


in writing, but agreed to do so at the express request 
of the Churches.* 

We have no detailed information of the last years 
of the Apostle. Two incidents have come down to 
us which agree perfectly with what we know of him. 
Irenzeus relates, that going one day into the public 
baths at Ephesus, and hearing that Cerinthus was 
also there, he immediately went out, exclaiming, that 
he feared the house might fall, because of the” pres- 
ence of so great an enemy of the truth. St. Jerome 
tells us how the aged Apostle, no longer able to 
preach at any length, would be carried into the as- 
semblies of the Christians to speak the simple words, 
“ Little children, love one another.” To his brethren 
and disciples, who asked him why he thus repeated 
himself, he replied, “ It is the Lord’s commandment, 
and when it is fulfilled nothing is wanting.’ ὁ This 
hatred of error, and this holy love, give us the perfect 
portraiture of John. It does not appear that he died 
a violent death. He fell asleep in Christ at a very 
advanced age, at the commencement of the reign of | 
Trajan. 

St. Augustine tells us, that in his time there was 
a very current belief that the Apostle was not dead, 
but was only sleeping in his grave.§ Evidently, this 


* Coactus est ab omnibus pene tunc Asiz episcopis et multarum 
ecclesiarum legationibus de divinitate Salvatoris altius scribere.” St. 
Jerome, ‘‘ Procemium in Matt.’’ See Note M, at the end of the vol- 
ume, on the authenticity of the gospel and epistles. 

+ Eusebius, ‘‘ Hist. Eccles.,” iv, 14. Epiphanius substitutes Ebion 
for Cerinthus without giving any reason. ‘‘ Heeres.,”’ 30. 

ἘΞ Hieronym., ‘‘ Comment. in Galatos,”’ c. vi. 

§ Augustini, ‘‘ Tractatus 124 in Johann, ;”? Lemain de Tillemont, 


i; 371: 


430 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


impression arose from a wrong interpretation of the 
words of Christ, spoken to Peter with reference to 
John: “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is 
that to thee?” John xxi, 22. Perhaps, also, the 
Christians may have found it hard to believe that the 
Apostle whose influence was still so great, had really 
passed from the world. They were not altogether 
wrong. As Liicke has said, he lives, and will ever 
live, by his writings,* and the future belongs to him 
even more than the past. 


δ. 11. The Revelation. 


Before entering on the exposition of the doctrine 
of St. John in its most complete form, as we find it 
in the gospel and epistles, it will be needful, in order 
to trace the gradual development of the revelations 
of the New Testament, that we show what is the fun- 
damental idea of the Apocalypse. 

We may observe first, that so far from being in op- 
position to the other writings of St. John, this book 
comprehends all the essential points of his theology, 
but in the condition of germs not yet fully developed. 
There is no stronger evidence of this agreement than 
the place given in the Revelation to the person of 
Jesus Christ. Every thing centers in the Saviour. 
He is called the “Lion of the tribe of Judah, and 
the “ Root of David ”—expressions which point to his 
humanity. Rev. v, 5; xxii, 16. His divinity is no less 
distinctly recognized. He is the Alpha and Omega, 
the first and the last, the beginning and the end. 

* Liicke, work quoted, p. 40. In the ‘‘ Acta Apocrypha” (Tisch- 


endorf edit., p. 276) it is said that a spring of living water gushed 
from the tomb of John. 


BOOK -Til.——FiIRSE CENTURY. 431 


Reve 87 ὙΠ ΤΥ ~ Clothed' i a’ vesture 
dipped in blood, he is called the Word, or the Word 
of God, and he is followed by the armies of heaven. 
The Revelation is full of the idea of redemption. It 
delights in representing the Saviour under the image 
of the Lamb slain, whose blood cleanses from all sin. 
Rev. v, 9. The heavenly hosts adore him. The 
King of humanity, as he was once its victim, he holds 
the keys of hell and of death; Rev. 1,18 ;-iti, 21. Hie. 
is the divine Head of the Church, its guide and de- 
fense. Rev. iii, 19. The Church, in spite of a Jewish 
symbolism, which is easy of interpretation, is clearly 
distinguished from the synagogue. It comprehendsa 
“ multitude of every nation and kindred and people and 
tongue.” Rev. ν, 9. Itis composed of those who have 
washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb, and 
who are walking in the way of holiness. Rev. vii, 14, 
15; xiv, 3, 4. The Apocalypse rests, therefore, on _ 
the same doctrinal basis as the fourth gospel ; 7 and, 
if it is true that it was written nearly thirty years 
previously, we may fairly conclude that what is called 
the system of St. John was not the product of specu- 
lation, or of the combination of Jewish and Hellenic 
elements, but that it was formed in substance before 
these elements, borrowed from pagan philosophy, 
could by possibility have entered into the current be- 
liefs of the Church. We must seek, then, some other 
source than Alexandrian philosophy for the theology 
of John; and what other source can, at this early 


* Καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. Rev. pi Os 7: 

+ For the discussion of this assertion see the note on the Apoca- 
lypse at the end of the volume. Compare Lechler, ‘ Apost. und 
Nachapost. Zeit.,’? 199-201. : 


432 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


period, have been open to him but the teaching of 
the Master? 

The Revelation is not a recital of doctrine—it is 
primarily a book of prophecy; it opens a wide and 
glorious horizon to Christian hope, and paints it with 
glowing colors. It bears the impress of the age in 
which it was written. It raises the events of that ' 
time to the height of solemn symbols ; thus, it is at 
the same time the book of revelations and an impor- 
tant historical record. In it, as has been well said, 
we breathe the very atmosphere of martyrdom. 
Written immediately after the first, and, perhaps, the 
most cruel of all the persecutions—that in which the 
brutal hatred of Roman paganism spent its first fury 
—the book of Revelation catches, as it were, the lurid 
reflection of the flames which consumed the Chris- 
tians in the gardens of Nero; while, at the same 
time, it is illuminated throughout with the certainty 
of triumph. Contrasting the glory of the Church 
above with the indignities heaped on the Church be- 
low, the Revelation seems to drown the cries and the 
blasphemies of earth in the songs of the blessed and 
of the angels. After depicting the conflict and suf- 
ferings of the saints, and the terrible judgments of 
God upon their persecutors, it opens a vista of the 
heavenly places. It is one of the grandest concep- 
tions of the sacred writer, perpetually to link together 
earth and heaven, and to show in the events of relig- 
ious history the counterpart of other events, of which 
the abode of the blessed is the scene. The sealed 
book which contains the mystery of the destinies of 
humanity is at the foot of the throne of God. From 
thence resound the seven trumpets which declare 


BOOK III.—FIRST: CENTURY. 433 


the doom of the wicked ; from thence do the angels 
pour forth their vials of wrath. While, for the visible 
Church, all is humiliation and suffering or weary wait- 
ing, all is glory for the Church invisible ; yet never was 
the mysterious link uniting the two more plainly man- 
ifested. The Church triumphant watches the struggle 
of the Church militant with a tender, unceasing so- 
licitude, and all heaven is attentive to the obscure 
drama enacted in one corner of the universe. No 
stronger consolation than this could have been given to 
the Christians, who were treated by their adversaries 
as the offscouring of all things. Nor has the assured 
blessedness of the faithful ever been depicted in a. 
manner more beautiful and touching. If the sacred 
writer employs for this description the rich coloring 
of oriental symbolism, we are yet fully conscious that 
the blessedness he describes is essentially spiritual. 
“These which are arrayed in white robes, whence 
came they?” “These are they which came out of 
great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and 
made them white in the blood of the Lamb. There- 
fore are they before the throne of God, and serve him 
day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on 
the throne shall dwell among them. They shall hun- 
ger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall 
the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb 
which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, 
and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters : 
and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” 
Rev. vil, 13-17. 

But the sacred writer is not content with proclaim- 
ing in a general manner the suffering and triumph of 
the Church. The further he proceeds in his delinea- 

28 


434 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


tion of the struggle between Christianity and Anti 
christ, the more definite does he become in detail, 
though he makes use of a stately symbolism, some- 
times strange, and always full of variety. Just as 
ancient prophecy was subject to rhythmical conditions, 
and uttered its most passionate inspirations in con- 
formity with the rules of Hebrew poetry, so the 
prophet of the New Testament arranged his abun- 
dant materials in harmonious order. The Apocalypse 
has a rhythm of its own, taking the word in its wide 
acceptation. The seven trumpets follow the seven 
seals, and these again are succeeded by the seven 
vials. In the three cycles of revelations there is 
always a pause after the sixth link of the series to 
prepare for the last link, which is itself destined to 
bring in a new series.* This series is not imme- 
diately introduced. The prophet seems to be lost for 
awhile in meditation on the history of the world and 
of the Church.t After the three series, intended to 
be all prophetic of the same visitations, we have the 
descriptions of the great conflict, which is itself di- 
vided into three acts: 1st. The fall of Babylon. Rev. 
Xvlll, xix. 2d. The combat between Antichrist and 
Satan, terminated by the reign of Christ over his 
own. Rev. xx, 1-6. 3d. The last struggle and the 


* Thus, after the stxth seal, there is an interval during which we 
are shown the elect around the throne of God. Rev. vii. After the 
sixth trumpet we have the episode of the book bitter and sweet, and 
of the measurement of the temple. Rev. xxi. Lastly, after the sixth 
vial, we hear the solemn warning, ‘‘ Behold, I come as a thief.” 
Chap. xvi, 15. See Liicke, “ Offenbarung,” 409-411. 

+ See Rev. viii, 1; see also chap. xii. From chap. xii to chap. xvi, 
after the seven trumpets and before the seven vjals, the sacred writer 
describes in detail the enemies of the Church. 


BOOK III].—FIRST CENTURY. 435 


last victory, the new heaven and the new earth. 
Revo ΣΤ Pits xxi “Sich: Ί the’ plany ofthe: Apoca- 
lypse. We find in it the same gradation as in the 
prophecy of Christ referring to the last times. Matt. 
xxiv, 5. Thus the agonies and convulsions of nature 
which are to precede the final judgment, the wars, 
famines, pestilences, earthquakes, the darkening of 
the sun, the falling of the stars, the universal terror— 
all these signs given in brief touches by the Master, 
are dwelt upon by the inspired disciple in bold sym- 
bolism. The terrible rider on the red horse, who 
comes forth at the opening of the second seal to take 
peace from the earth, is the personification of war ; 
as the man mounted upon the black horse, and with 
the pair of balances in his hand, represents famine. 
The earthquakes and the darkening of the sky are 
heralded by the opening of the sixth seal. 

The first trumpets and the first vials announce the 
same order of judgments, and both have reference to 
the commencement of the prophecy of the first gospel. 
Jesus Christ, after predicting the chastisements and 
judgments of God in nature, declared his judgments 
in history, and first of all, the destruction of Jerusalem. 
St. John, who wrote after the overthrow of the 
Temple, proclaims another judgment of God. Sen- 
tence is to be passed now, not upon Jerusalem, but 
upon Rome, the impure and bloody Babylon, the in- 
carnation at that time of the genius of evil. Whata 
grand delineation does the evangelical Prophet give 
of this diabolical paganism—now as the beast with 
seven heads and ten horns, opening its mouth to pour 
out blasphemy against God ; now as the great whore, 
robed in purple and scarlet, making the inhabitants 


436 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


of the earth drunk with the wine of her fornications, 
herself drunk with blood of the martyrs of Christ, 
having ascended out of the bottomless pit and going 
into perdition! What an impression was such a 
prophetic cry calculated.to produce, uttered as it was 
in the presence of the Roman Colossus still standing 
in all the pride of its great power! “ Babylon is fallen, 
is fallen, that great city!” Rev, xiv, δ Rejoice 
over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and 
prophets ; for God hath avenged you on her. And 
a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone 
and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence 
shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and 
shall be found no more at all. And the voice of 
harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, 
shall be heard no more at all in thee ; and no crafts- 
man, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any 
more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be 
heard no more atall in thee ; and the light of a candle 
shall shine no more at all in thee ; and the voice of 
the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no 
more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great 
men of the earth ; for by thy sorceries were all na- 
tions deceived. And in her was found the blood of 
prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain 
upon the earth.” Rev. xviii, 20-24. 

But the Church has not only to fight against Anti- 
christ without; it has also to resist Antichrist 
within: to do battle, that is, with heresy and false 
prophecy. “Many false prophets shall arise and 
shall deceive many,” said Jesus Christ. Matt. xxiv, 11. 
St. John represents false prophecy under the image 
of a beast coming up out of the earth, in appearance 


BOOK ΤΠ: Ξ ΗΘ ‘CENTURY. 437 


like a lamb, but speaking as a beast, doing great 
wonders, and deceiving them that dwell on the earth 
by his miracles. Rev. xi, 11-14. Behind this visible 
opponent the Apostle shows us the invisible enemy, 
the dragon, the old serpent, which gave power to the 
beast. Rev. xii, 4. The conflict is unto blood, alike 
in the prediction of the Saviour and in the Apoca- 
lypse. The two witnesses, who are Moses and Elias— 
types of all the confessors of Christ—are put to death ; 
but the Spirit of life from God enters into them again 
and they are victorious. Rev. xi, 9-11. The holy of 
holies of the spiritual temple is never profaned. The 
Church keeps an inviolable sanctuary. Rev. xi, I, 2. 
She herself, in spite of the rage of her adversaries, 
who are gathered together like wild beasts around a 
travailing woman, is delivered by God from their vio- 
lence ; her child, the divine fruit of this sore travail, 
is) caught: ip. into heaven. Nev. xii; ον Storr 
unites in this beautiful image the old economy and 
the new; both are set forth in this woman, who, in 
peril and pain, brings forth a glorious offspring. Of 
the ancient economy the Christ was born, who now 
rules in heaven with a rod of iron; while by him the 
Church, in the midst of her anguish, and encompassed 
with bitter foes, bears many sons unto glory. Ever 
persecuted, she is ever by God delivered, and the 
fruit of her labor is received up into heaven. 

Thus, in the Revelation as in the prophecy of Jesus 
Christ, are unfolded the judgments of God as mani- 
fested in nature and in history, and the sanguinary 
and victorious struggles of the Church with her many 
adversaries. The inspired. writer has added in his 
picture new features drawn from the historical events 


438 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


of the time and interpreted by the spirit of prophecy, 
but the words of St. John have not, any more than 
the words of Christ, an application restricted to his 
own age. The immediate events which he foretells 
have all a typical value. Just as with the Master, 
the destruction of Jerusalem was the symbol of the 
end of the world, so with the disciple, the destruction 
of Rome symbolizes and precedes the final judgment 
of God. Prophecy has thus advanced a step and en- 
larged its horizon as the conflict itself has become 
wider. St. John gives us clearly to understand that 
the drama is far from being finished after the over- 
throw of the Western Babylon, and that it is to be 
recommenced on the smoking ruins of Rome. In 
fact, after the Roman power shall have been broken, 
ten kings are to rise up against Christ, and to give to 
the conflict a new character of violence. Rev. xvii, 
12-15. These ten kings (strange to say) shall be led 
forth to the battle by the Roman beast, which appears 
again to make war upon the mystic Lamb. Rev. 
x1x, 20. We recognize here the depth of prophetic 
insight in the Revelation. We might have thought 
that the beast, which represented the savage spirit of 
Antichrist, was dead with imperial Rome, in which 
it found its most perfect embodiment. Far other- 
wise ; that spirit is deathless upon earth ; it has been ; 
it will still be. The wound of the beast shall be 
healed. Rev. xiii, 3. In one man—Nero, the fifth 
I’mperor—the spirit of Antichrist was absolutely in- 
carnate ; and the Antichrist of the last times* shall so 


“It isnot possible to determine with certainty whether Antichrist 
will be simply a diabalical power, or a personality. We incline, 
however, to the latter interpretation. 


BOOK 1.5 Ἐ ΘΠ CENTURY. 439 


closely resemble him that Nero may be said to reap- 
pear in him. The name of Nero fills, in the pro- 
phetic picture of Antichrist, the same prominent posi- 
tion as the name of Cyrus or of David in the pro- 
phetic delineations of Messiah in the oracles of the 
Old Testament.* The triumph of the Church is con- 
nected in the Apocalypse, as in the first gospel, with 
the return of Christ. To proclaim that triumphant 
return, and to describe its glorious results, is the great 
object of the book of the Revelation, as to wait for it 
is the highest consolation left by the Master to his 


disciples. 
In the Apocalypse two distinct periods are marked 


in this final triumph of Christianity over Antichrist. 
The first victory is brought about by the direct and 
visible intervention of the Saviour, taking up the 
cause of his people and gloriously establishing the 
reign of his Church upon earth.t After this period 


- 

* See, in reference to this whole subject, Note L at the end of the 
volume. We know how frequently the prophets proclaim the return 
of a well-known person, when they intend to signify that a man in 
all points like him is to appear. We need only to refer to the prophe- 
cies concerning Elijah, and to the passage in the Revelation, in which 
the two witnesses are designated as Moses and Elias. 

+ The idea of a millennium preceded by a first resurrection is sug- 
gested by Rev. xx; but we must not forget the symbolical character 
of the book. The glorious triumph of the Church is in itself a judg- 
ment of the world. The world is judged by the saints whom it had 
made its victims; their victory is its condemnation. The writer of 
the Revelation, when he shows us the saints raised from the dead and 
sitting upon thrones, employs an image analogous to that used by him 
to describe the triumph of the two faithful witnesses in the Church. 
Rev. xi, 11. We may observe, that at the close of chap. xx, 12-15, 
mention is made of a general resurrection of the dead in which all are 
judged according to their works. The judgment had then yet to take 
place, and the Christians appointed to salvation were not yet raised. 


440 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


the old adversary of God will once again prevail to 
deceive the nations; but this will be his last effort. 
The drama of history concludes with his condemna- 
tion and with the solemn judgment of the children 
of men, conducted by Him whom once they crucified 
and who now reappears in all the glory of his power. 
Then comes the end, and then commences that 
eternal blessedness of the elect celebrated by St. 
John in the language of heaven.* 

“And there shall be no more curse; but the 
throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and 
his servants shall serve him. And they shall see his 
face, and his name shall be in their foreheads. And 
‘there shall be no night there: and they need no can- 
dle, neither light of the sun, for the Lord God giveth 
them light, and they shall reign for ever and ever.” 

Such is this marvelous book—one of the most sub- 
lime gifts of the Spirit of God to the Church; one 
which would have been its best consolation in all 
ages, as it was that of the martyrs of Lyons and of 
Asia Minor, if it had not been too often transformed 
into an unintelligible cipher, through a misconcep- 
tion of its historical basis. One important truth we 
learn from it, namely, that history interpreted by God 
is a great oracle, which, in each of its periods, repeats, 
with a living comment, the prophecy of Jesus Christ 
concerning the last times. The struggle which is 
renewed from age to age between Christ and Anti- 
christ, the partial triumph of the former, and the more 
and more decisive defeats of the latter, bring us to the 
final conflict and crowning victory, which will be co- 
incident with the return of Christ in glory. The 


* See chapters xxi and xxii of the Revelation, 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 44: 


Church, in the certainty of victory, has a right to 
cry in presence of any power, however great and 
glorious, which has lent itself to the service of sin : 
“ Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen!” Its fall will 
be the reiterated prophecy of that of the Satanic 
power, which for so many ages has set itself against 
God. The day is coming when that power shall be 
forever broken, and the disciples of Christ shall see 
the end of their day of shame, and shall reign in glory 
with him after whom they have borne the cross. 

How greatly were such consolations needed in the 
year 71, on the eve of so much suffering and igno- 
miny, when the few disciples gathered around St. 
John saw all the brutal violence of imperial Rome, 
‘and all the seductions of heresy arising out of the 
pit to fight against them.* 


* It is not possible to attempt to give even an outline of the history 
of the interpretation of the Apocalypse. Its commentators may be 
divided into two classes: 1st. Those who see the fulfillment of the 
greater part of its revelations in the past. The Apocalypse is to these 
an inspired manual of the universal history of the last eighteen centu- 
ries. 2d. Those who hold that this book relates exclusively to the 
last times. This interpretation, which is combined with an unintel- 
ligent literalism, is wholly inadmissible. In both theories, however, 
there is an element of truth. It is true that the great phases of his- 
tory may be discovered in the Apocalypse, because the key to the 
whole history of mankind is found in the conflict of Christ and Anti- 
christ. It is also true that a final accomplishment of the prophecies 
is to be looked for in the last times, and especially the personal return 
of Jesus Christ. Our interpretation appears to us to combine these 
two systems in their elements of truth, while setting aside what is 
false and extravagant in both. 


4AAZ “EARLY YEARS OF THE ‘CHRISTIAN ‘CHURCH. 


CHAPPER sii. 


THE DOCTRINE OF ST. JOHN.* 


AUL is, in his statement of doctrine, as in his 

life, the man of contrasts and antitheses. He 
aims to show how deep is the gulf between human 
nature and God, that he may the more exalt the grace 
which has bridged the chasm ; and he traces vigor- 
ously the line of demarkation between the old cove- 
nant and the new. It is not so with John. Having. 
attained gradually, and without any sudden shock; 
the highest elevation of Christian truth, he starts 
from the summit and gently comes down again. He 
does not even pause to establish the superiority of 
the Gospel over the law. With him that is a settled 
point, an admitted principle from which he deduces 
the consequences. John does not commence, like 
Paul, with man and his misery, but with God and his 
perfection. His doctrine, by this character of sus- 


* Schmid maintains that the Apostle’s doctrine should be sought 
only in the prologue to the gospel and in the epistles, not in the gos- 
pel itself, because the latter gives us not the theology of the Apostle, 
but the teaching of the Master. We feel no such hesitation, for 
while we admit that John faithfully reproduces that divine teaching, 
it is evident that in the choice made by him of the words which he 
preserved, there is the clear impress of his own individuality. (See, 
for the doctrine of John, Schmid, work quoted, pp. 359-395 ; Nean- 
der, ‘ Pflanz.,”” 874; Reuss, ‘‘ Christian Theology of the Apostolic 
Age,” ii, 276; Lechler, ‘‘ Das apostolische und nachapostolische 
Zeitalter,” 195; Fromman, ‘Der Johannische Lehrbegriff,” 1857. 
See also the works quoted from Baur and Schwegler.) * 


BOOK. ΡΞ ΞΘ CENTURY. 443 


tained elevation, and by the part assigned in it to love 
and to the direct intuition of divine things, bears the 
impress of mysticism, but of a mysticism which is es- 
sentially moral,in which the great laws of conscience 
are always maintained, and which is as far removed 
from oriental pantheism as from Pharisaic legalism. 


S I. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 


At the summit of his doctrine, St. John places the 
idea of God. God is the Absolute Being, the great 
I Am, whom no eye hath seen or can see. He isa 
Spirit.* All perfection dwells in him ; he is at once 
life, light, and love. As he is Absolute Being, so he 
is Absolute, Eternal Life, the inexhaustible source, 
the sole principle of every thing that ist But this 
ite -is-at the same time light.“ “John i, 5: “Light 
represents perfect knowledge and spotless purity.t 
God knows all things ; God is holy. But John does 
not pause at this abstract conception of moral good. 
He gives us a concrete notion of it when he tells us 
that God is love.§ This he is, as essentially as he is 
life and light. Love is not only a manifestation of 
his being, it is its very essence. Never before had 
this sublime thought been expressed with such clear- 
ness ; it had been discerned only by glimpses. Under 
the old covenant the love of God was subordinate to 
his justice. Under.the new, this limited view had for 
a long time prevailed. St. Paul insisted with much 
force upon the love of God, but he considered it 

* Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε. John i, 18 ; iv, 24. 

+ Ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. τ John vy, 20. 

t Τινώσκει πάντα. 1 John iii, 20. ‘Ayvég ἐστι. 1 John iii, 3. 
ὃ Ὁ Θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστί. τ John iv, 16. 


444 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


rather in its historical manifestation for the salvation 
of man than in its eternal principle. It is on this 
eternal principle that St. John dwells. He sees in 
the cross not only reconciliation between man and 
God, but also the revelation of the true name of God, 
of his very being. He is love ; the God who is love 
is the true God. 1 John v, 20. Love is so assuredly 
the absolute truth, that he who loveth is “of the 
truth.’ He is a.partaker of-the nature of. God:* 
Thus truth or light is inseparable from love ; it is not 
simple knowledge, a mere theory. St. John does 
not recognize the ray of light which has no flame. 
Truth is, as it were, full of life ; it is life as it is love. 
It is all that God himself is. To be of the truth is 
to be born of God, to possess him, to be what he is ; 
it is, therefore, to have love in one’s self. The object 
of knowledge being the God who is love, it is natural 
that true knowledge should be inseparable from love. 

It must not be supposed, because John dwells espe- 
cially on the moral attributes of God, that he passes 
by in silence his metaphysical attributes. These are 
all comprised in the absolute life which he ascribes to 
God.t To the Apostle, love is not one of the attri- 
butes of God, it is God himself; the metaphysical 
attributes are the attributes of the divine love. God 
is holy, infinite, almighty love, knowing every thing, 
every-where present. John delights, therefore, to 
sive Him the name of the Father—that wondrous 
name which commands at once tenderness and rever- 
ἐπ ΠΣ te cect |ODMNoIIE I: 


ἘΠᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν. ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεγέννηται καὶ γινώσκει τὸν Θεόν. 
x0, ohm ἵν, ἢ. 
+ ** The Father hath life in himself.” John v, 26. 


BOOK III,-—-FIRST CENTURY. 445 


But how does this invisible God reveal himself? 
How does He who inhabits the inaccessible light com- 
municate himself to the creature, and what can be 
the first object of his love? We know the response 
of ancient philosophy to this question. At one time, 
finding no means of really bringing together the 
Infinite Being and the changing and finite creature, 
it left them face to face as two eternal principles— 
Uncreated Spirit opposed to uncreated matter. Again 
it sought in the Infinite Spirit the germ of the finite 
and perishable being, and arrived at the second by a 
series of descending steps from the first. Human 
opinion vacillated between Platonic dualism and the 
oriental or Alexandrian theory of emanation. Neither 
of these solutions is that given by St. John. The 
prologue of his gospel, written distinctly in view of 
the false philosophies of his age, solves the delicate 
problem of the relation of the invisible God to the 
world by the doctrine of the Word—a doctrine abso- 
lutely unknown before Christianity, and which, so far 
from being borrowed from Philo, is in direct opposi- 
tion to his system. What is here treated of is not 
an impersonal Word, which is only a scholastic term 
to designate the world, or rather, the complex of the 
ideas realized in the innumerable beings of which the 
universe is composed.* The prologue speaks of a 
Being distinct from God, and yet God as God himself. 
He is, like him, life and light in an absolute sense.t 
The only begotten Son dwelling in the bosom of the 
Father, he is the eternal object of his love. Eternal 


* See our exposition of Philo’s doctrine in “‘ The Life and Times 
of Jesus Christ.” 
{ Ὁ λόγος ἣν πρὸς τὸν Θεον, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. John i, 1. 


446 EARLY YEARS* OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


love has thus an object like itself beyond the world 
and time.* The Son calls himself the Word, because 
he is the perfect manifestation of the Father. He 
reveals him in his person, which is his express image, 
and becomes the organ of his revelations in the world 
when it pleases him to create a world. The single 
fact that he bears this name of the Son and the Word 
appears to us to imply in the doctrine of St. John, as 
in that of St. Paul, a relation of subordination to the 
Father. The Son proceeding eternally from the 
Father is, in comparison with him, eternally in the 
relation of him who is begotten to him who begets. 
Their nature is identical because of this very relation- 
ship. He is God with God, but he is God begotten 
of God from all eternity.} He may nevertheless truly 
say, “I and my Father are one.’’t 

After the Son and the Father, John recognizes a 
third Divine Person—the Holy Spirit, who is sent to 
the Church by the Father and the Son. John xiv, 26; 
xv, 26. This Spirit speaks of those things which he 


5. Ἔν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν. John i, 4. 

Ἵ Ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς, ὁ ὧν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς. John i, 18. 
M. Reuss sees in this passage only the idea of the free existence, not 
of the eternity, of the Word. But is not this eternity implied in the 
divinity so clearly recognized in the Word by St. John ? 

1 Compare John v, 43; vil, 28; vili, 42. According to Fromman, 
neither the Father nor the Son alone constitutes the Deity. Just as 
the idea of the State is only realized by the’co-existence of the gov- 
erning and the governed, so the idea of the Deity is only realized by 
the co-existence of the Father and the Son, necessary to the relation 
of absolute love. (See Fromman’s explanation of the prologue of St. 
John.) This analogy with the State is not happy, for the relations 
between the Son and the Father bear no parallel to those between 
the governing and the governed. But it may reasonably be said that 
there are ideas involved of complex elements, and of several agents, 
which are only realized by their co-existence. 


BOOK* ΞΘ Ὁ ΕΝ ΘΕνΥ.: 447 


has heard. John xvi, 132. Here the subordination is 
evident. Some have even gone so far as to question 
the personality of the Holy Spirit, on the ground of 
certain expressions which seem to contradict it ; but 
the offices attributed to him, such as teaching, consol- 
ing, the guidance of the Church, imply a personal 
existence. This fact appears to us to come out dis- 
tinctly from the writings of St. John, though we may 
not be able to deduce from them a clear and complete 
statement of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.* 


SII. The Word and the World. 


The existence of the Eternal Word establishes the 
divine freedom, for in him absolute love finds its 
perfect realization. 

God is under no constraining necessity to create. 
If he does so, it can only be by a determination of his 
free love. According to St. John, the Word takes an 
important part in creation. As the organ of revela- 
tion, by whom alone the light, life, and love emanating 
from God can be communicated, “all things were 
made by him, and without him was not any thing 
made that was made.’ 7 

The Word not only created the world. He already, 
in part, gave himself to the world: “ He was in the 
world.” In truth, the moral creature derives from 
him all the elements of the higher life. Something 


* God himself is called a Spirit. John iv, 24. Mention ts made of 
more than one Spirit. 1 John iv, 1, 2; compare John vii, 39, οὕπω 
yap ἦν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, and John xx, 22. See Reuss, work quoted, 
vol. ll, pp. 413-432. 

+ Πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν. 
John i, 3. 

1 Ἔν τῷ κόσμω ἢν. John i, το. 


448 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


was imparted to it from the Word. The Word is the 
“light which lighteth every man that cometh into the 
world.”* Thus do we find in St. John a sublime 
commentary on the noble utterance of St. Paul—“ For 
we are also his offspring.” In reason and conscience 
man has in himself an inner Word, an emanation 
from the Eternal Word, by which he is rendered 
capable of perceiving divine things and of possessing 
God himself. Such a conception raises us far above 
any dualistic notion ; nor is it possible to conceive a 
more decided opposition than that which subsists 
between this doctrine and that of Philo. While John 
admits an essential and true harmony between human 
nature and the Godhead, the Alexandrian philosophy 
declares plainly that it is impossible for man to draw 
near to God. 

This harmony, however, has not been sustained. 
John recognizes the intrusion of a principle of discord 
into the world. The power of sin has been let loose. 
He does not enter into any argument on the origin 
of evil. He affirms the fact and is content with 
proving it. A kingdom of darkness has set itself in 

*"Hy τὸ φῶς TO ἀληθινὸν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, ἐρχόμενον εἰς 
τὸν κόσμον. John i, 9. Notwithstanding the contrary opinion held 
by many learned exegetes, our translation still seems to us more in 
harmony with the context and with grammar. In fact, the distance 
between ἣν and ἐρχόμενον is too great for the two words to be con- 
nected. We know that the rabbis were accustomed to designate man 
as ‘him that cometh into the world.” Lastly, St. John, in the verse 
following, speaks not of the illumination of the world by the incar- 
nation, but of the illumination previously given to the world by the 
Word. Therefore it is said that when He came into the world he came 
‘unto his own.”? ‘This last expression would indeed itself suffice to 


establish an essential link between the Word and humanity. See the 


discussion of this passage in the commentaries of De Wette, Tholuck, 
and Licke. 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 449 


opposition to the kingdom of light, of which God is 
the sun. The devil has had a great influence upon 
man, seducing him into evil. He is not indeed to be 
regarded as Ahriman the eternal, confronted with 
the eternal Ormuz; no, the principle of light was 
before the principle of evil. Satan himself was born 
in the light, for it is said “ He abode not in the truth.’”’* 
It is evident that John supposes a fall in his case no 
less than in ours, and that consequently, in the origin 
of things, all was light and purity as became a crea- 
tion called into being by the Word.t The cause of 
evil is entirely moral. ‘ Sin,” says the Apostle, “is 
the transgression of the law.’’t 

There is a law for the creature. It is this law 
which John calls the old and new commandment, the 
commandment of love based upon the very being of 
God. 1 John ii, 5-10. The destiny of the moral crea- 
ture is to become like his Creator, conformed to his 
nature. “The law implies liberty, for it appeals to the 
will. Sin, then, was a free violation of the law of 
God. The creature took part against God ; that is 
to say, he rejected life, love, and light. Thus the 
world became dark from the day in which it turned 
from God. It is now plunged in moral night ; all the 
higher elements are stifled in man; the outward and 
sensible life predominates ; the lust of the flesh, the 


* Ey τῇ ἀληθείᾳ ody ἕστηκεν. John vill, 44. 

+ M. Reuss (work quoted, II, 380) misconceives John’s idea, when 
he denies that the fourth gospel represents Satan as a fallen angel. 
Doubtless the fall of Satan does not explain ours; we might rather 
say, the reverse is true. The trial through which man passed as a 
free creature reveals itself to us as an indispensable condition of lib- 
erty for all moral creatures. 

Ζ Ἢ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία. τ John iii, 4. 


450 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


lust of the eyes, and the pride of life enshroud it in 
threefold darkness. 1 John ii, 16,17. It is given over 
to a lie because it has set itself against good and 
love—that is, against God and the Word. Its prince 
is he who was a liar and murderer from the begin- 
ning, (John viii, 44,) and who, having fallen himself, 
has dragged after him in his descent all those who 
have freely, and under no external constraint, followed 
his suggestions. 

John does not assert, however, that this darkness 
which envelopes the world is traversed by no beam 
of heavenly light. Even now, the Word enlightens 
the human soul ; all that it possesses of intelligence, 
of true reason, of divine consciousness, it derives 
from him. When he comes to man he comes to his 
own.* If the fall were total—that is to say, if all 
spiritual capability were dead in man—it would then 
be irremediable, since there could be no more any 
point of contact between the heart and God. But if 
the buried germ of the Word were not fertilized by 
grace, mankind would be none the less irrevocably 


lost. | 
S III. Zhe Word and Redemption. 


The Word, which was the organ of creative love, is 
also the organ of the compassionate love of the Fa- 
ther. The whole work of salvation rests upon him. 
This work is twofold. It is both internal and ex- 
ternal, for it is to effect the reconciliation and reunion 
of God and man. It is not enough that God should 
draw near to man by a series of revelations ; it is also 
necessary that man should be inclined toward God. 
In truth, that he may come to the fountain of living . 


* Hic ta ἴδια ἦλθε. John i, 11. 


BOOK FI.-——EIRST GENTURY: 451 


- 


waters, man must be athirst. John vii, 37. He must 
be born from above in order to receive the Redeemer, 
who comes down from heaven. Only “he who is of 
God heareth the words of God.” John viii, 23-49. 
The voice of the Good Shepherd is known only by 
his: ‘sheep~ John x, 27: In ‘other :words, the soul 
must have recovered the sense of divine things, and 
there must be an affinity between it and the truth, in 
order that it may come to the light. 

This religious aptitude, this pre-existing and nec- 
essary harmony between the conscience and the 
Gospel, John calls the drawing of the Father. John 
vi, 44. To arouse within the soul this thirst after 
God, to develop this infinite desire, is the inward 
work of the Word. Thus he is not satisfied with 
communicating the higher life of the soul to every 
man that cometh into the world. He sustains, nour- 
ishes, and developes this higher life, and shines into 
the darkness of every soul.* He scrupulously re- 
spects, however, the sacred rights of free will—for 
man’s return to God, like his departure from him, 
must be a moral act. The light which is in us may 
be relumed or wholly extinguished, according to the 
attitude we assume toward the revelations given to 
the world. If man plunges into sin his mind becomes 
wholly dark, and thus he repels the light, “ because 
his deeds are evil.” If, on the other hand, he seeks 
to do the will of God, if he fosters the love of truth 
and of good, he comes to the light,f and he recog- 


* Kai τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει. John i, 5. 

¢ Πᾶς γὰρ ὁ φαῦλα πράσσων, μισεῖ τὸ φῶς καὶ οὐκ ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸ 
φῶς͵, ἵνα μὴ ἐλεγχθῇ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. ὋὉ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔρχεται 
πρὺς τὸ φῶς. John iii, 20, 21. 


452 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


nizes it as it beams on him with- gentle radiance. 
“If any man will do the will of God, he shall know 
of the doctrine whether it be of God.” John vi, 17. 
The rejection of the light is a determination of the 
will. “ Ye will not come to me that ye might have 
life.” * Thus we find in the inner work of the Word 
the two poles of the moral world—grace and free 
will. 

But this work within is not enough. To the in- 
finite need of the soul there must be a corresponding 
infinite satisfaction. It returns to God: God must 
return to it. A positive revelation is necessary. 
John, like Paul, distinguishes two successive revela- 
tions. The first has only a preparatory value, it is 
but twilight ; its rays proceed indeed from the Word, 
as all light does, but they only herald his appearance. 
“The law came by Moses,” says John, “but grace 
and truth came by Jesus Christ.” + Thus the Apos- 
tle solves without discussion the great question 
which had excited so much controversy. The law 
was but the shadow of salvation ; the new covenant, 
by communicating to man the grace and pardon of 
God, alone gives the substance of the good promised 
to humanity ; it alone lifts him into that full ight of 
truth which is inseparable from love. This was to 
proclaim the abrogation of the Mosaic covenant in 
unmistakable terms. John does not fail, however, te 
recognize its divine character. In the fourth gospel 
Jesus Christ appeals to Moses ; (John v, 46;) he de- 
clares that “salvation is of the Jews,” thus connect- 


* Οὐ θέλετε. John v. 40. 
Τ᾽ Ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωύσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χρια- 
τοῦ ἐγένετο. John i, 17. 


BOOK: ἘΠ ΞΟ ΝΒ CENTURY. 453 


ing his work with the whole series of antecedent rev- 
elations.* Like the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, but with far greater depth of argument, 
St. John establishes the superiority of the new cov- 
enant by the incomparable superiority of its founda- 
tion. The last and the greatest Prophet of the old 
covenant was not himself “that light, but was sent 
to bear witness of that light, that all men through 
him might believe.” John i, 6-8. Jesus Christ, on 
the other hand, is the true light; he is that Word 
who is “God with God,” the “ Word made flesh.” ἢ 
He is not sent, like John the Baptist, that all men 
through him might believe, but that all might believe 
an him. He is the object of faith. Did he not say, 
“Tam the Way, the Truth, and the Life ?” John xiv, 6. 

While St. Paul dwelt especially on the work 
wrought by the Saviour, St. John insists mainly on 
his nature. The incarnation is, in his view, the cap- 
ital truth of Christianity. It is not only the neces- 
sary condition of redemption, it is the permanent 
condition of salvation. The proclamation of pardon 
is only the preliminary and initiative of salvation. 
For a man to be saved is to possess God—that is, to 
possess light, life, and truth ; and as in the incarnate 
Word humanity appears closely and indissolubly 
united to deity, so it is by union with him that salva- 
tion is fully realized. 

The incarnation thus regarded has an entirely new 
significance. Instead of being a pallid ray, which 
sinful man discerns quivering amid his thick darkness, 
it places him in the fullness of light ; it restores him 


ἘΞ σωτηρία ἐκ τῶν Ιουδαίων. John iv, 22. 
ἵ Ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο. John i, 14. 


454 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


to his normal condition. Created by the Word, and 
for the Word, in the light and for the light, he was 
destined to walk in the full light of God. The incar- 
nation is the true consummation of creation, while it 
is at the same time the only effectual reparation of 
the fall. We know with what emphasis St. John in- 
sists upon the reality of the incarnation in opposition 
to the heresies of his time, which, by a spurious ~ 
spiritualism, regarded the body of the Saviour as a 
sort of delusive semblance. “ Every spirit,” he says, 
“that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the 
flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not 
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.’’* 
Writing his gospel and epistles in presence of those 
dualistic tendencies which identified evil with the 
corporeal element, he felt himself called upon to 
magnify this glorious aspect of the incarnation. He 
does not dwell upon the humiliation of Christ as St. 
Paul does ; but there is no contradiction on this point 
between the two Apostles. If the glory of the only- 
begotten Son of the Father is apparent to John 
through the vail of mortal flesh, that glory is never- 
theless revealed in shrouded splendor. He shows us 
Jesus Christ as subject to the weaknesses and suffer- 
ing conditions of human life: he is weary, he groans, 
he weeps, he dies. This death is undoubtedly a lift- 
ing up, in a spiritual point of view,t and it was im- 
portant to prove this in contradiction to Cerinthus, 

* Πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεὶ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐκ σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα ἐκ τοῦ 
Θεοῦ éoriv. 1 John iv, 2, 3. 

+t We cannot accept M. Reuss’ idea on this point. He maintains 
that from St. John’s stand-point the humiliation of the Word is in- 
conceivable. 


1 Ὑψοῦσθαι. John iii, 14. 


BOOK ΥΠΞΤ GENTURY, 455 


who regarded his death as only illusory. St. John 
gives emphasis to the truth that it is both glorious 
and real: “this is he that came by blood.” But 
death is still death—that is, the depth of humiliation. 
The Saviour, as we read in the fourth gospel, prays 
dbefore working his miracles. John xi, 41, 42. He is 
not, then, in possession of omnipotence on earth as in 
heaven. He is subject to a certain abasement ; but 
he is subject to it voluntarily ; it is an act of his di- 
vine freedom. The Son has power to lay down his 
life, and has power to take it again;* thus, in our 
aspect, he is glorious in his humiliation. Yet more, 
to the Apostle of love the highest glory is that which 
comes from love. For him, as for Pascal, this is the 
supreme order of greatness. Thus regarded, what 
glory can be compared with the glory of Him who 
gave his life for his brethren on the accursed 
tree? 

St. John does not enlarge upon the incarnation it- 
self. There is no trace in his writings of scholastic 
theories. He does not formally distinguish two na- 
tures in Jesus Christ. He is content with affirming 
that the Word was made flesh, and with showing how 
deeply his human nature was penetrated with the 
nature of God. In the eyes of John human nature 
has a divine capacity or potentiality. st capar d- 
vinitatis. Jesus Christ is distinguished from all 
other men as the “ only-begotten Son of the Father,” 
who is like the Father, and one with Him,f not 
only by virtue of his holiness, which is without 


ἘΠΕ ξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι αὐτὴν, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν. 
John x, 18. 
1 ᾿Εγὼ καὶ 6 πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. John x, 30. 


456 EARLY YEARS OF THE. CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 


blemish,* but by virtue of his origin—that is to say, he 
is God in a metaphysical as well as in a moral sense. 

If the redemptive work of Christ is not fully 
brought out by St. John under all its aspects, it 
would be a grave error to see in it simply a revela- 
tion of the love of God. Such a revelation would be, 
untrue and incomplete if it were not in harmony 
with the demands of justice, which are also the re- 
quirements of the human conscience. St. John is 
very far from ignoring this important aspect of Chris- 
tianity. He ascribes a redeeming virtue to the Sav- 
iour’s death. He died for us. “ He is the propiti- 
ation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the 
sins of the whole world.’ Writing after St. Paul 
he uses expressions the meaning of which was already 
clearly defined. The importance which he attaches 
to the death of Jesus Christ, the necessity which he 
so clearly recognizes of appropriating him by faith, 
of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, § all show 
that John discerns in him the sacred victim, who 
offers the sacrifice of perfect love. But he never sep- 
arates the redeeming virtue of the blood of the cross 
from its purifying efficacy. The moral aspect is in- 
separable from the judicial, and is throughout St. 
John’s writings most prominently advanced. || We 


*"Epyertar yap ὁ τοῦ κόσμου ἄρχων: Kal ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν. 
John xiv, 30. 
. ΤῸ ποιμὴν ὁ καλὸς τὴν ψυχὴν αὑτοῦ τίθησιν ὑπὲρ τῶν προβάτων. 
John, 17: 

t Δὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστι περὶ TOV ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ob περί τῶν ἡμετέρων 
δὲ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. I John ii, 2. 

§ John vi, 53. Compare 1 John ν, 6. 

|| TS αἷμα ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης 
ἀμαρτίας. τ ΤοΒη 1, 7. Compare iii, 5. 


BOOK III].—FIRST CENTURY. A57 


are bound, moreover, to set all the particular points 
of John’s doctrine in the light of his central and dom- 
inant principle, which is expressed in the words: 
“God is love.’’ This love is a holy love, which de- 
mands satisfaction for wrong committed, and a peni- 
tent retractation on the part of mankind ; but it knows 
nothing of vengeance. The crucifixion, as repre- 
sented by John, is not an infinite compensation for 
an infinite crime. For him also, as for St. Paul, the 
cross is only the consummation of redemption. The 
entire life of the incarnate Word is comprehended in 
the redeeming work. The free sacrifice of love began 
to be offered from the time of his coming into the 
world, and at the very opening of his ministry John 
the Baptist pointed to him as the Lamb of God which 
taketh away the sins of the world. John i, 29. The 
indwelling divine light shines forth with softened 
luster throughout the whole course of his life. His 
miracles are but rays more intense and sensible, re- 
vealing to men the existence of the sun within; but 
it is most of all the pure brightness radiating from 
his entire nature, his ideal holiness, the heavenly 
love impressed on all his words and actions, which 
rekindles in human hearts the sparks of the higher 
life.* The death of Christ is the culminating point 
of his redeeming work, for it is, first, the supreme 
surrender, the highest form of sacrifice ; and next, it 


* Jesus Christ distinguishes between a faith based upon his holiness 
and a faith based upon his miracles; and he places the former on a 
higher level than the latter.- ‘If I do not the works of my Father,” 
he says, ‘‘ believe me not ; but if I do, though ye belicve not me, be- 
lieve the works.”’ John x, 37, 38. In other words, you ought to be- 
lieve me because of my obedience to my Father, and my holihess ; if 
not, believe me at least because of my miracles. 


45ὃ EARLY YEARS: OF THE: CHRISTIAN CHUREH. 


is the necessary condition of the diffusion of salvation. 
The love of the Word cannot be spread broadly over 
the world if it is not set free from all that is local and 
restricted as to space and time in its manifestation 
upon earth. “Except a grain of wheat fall into the 
ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it 
bringeth forth much fruit.” John xii, 24. 

We thus understand the Master’s words to his dis- 
ciples: “It is expedient for you that I go away.’* 
From the heaven to which he has returned he sends 
the Divine Comforter, the invisible and almighty 
Paraclete, who makes his presence real to his people ; 
and in the abode of glory he carries on, by his inter- 
cession, his office of Mediator with the Father.7 

Such is the work of the Word for the restoration 
of the world which he created, and which he thus 
moraliy re-creates by imparting himself to fallen man 
in a fullness greater than any to which man could 
-have dared to aspire even in the days of his integrity. 


SIV. The Word in the Christian and in the Church 
until the end of time. 


Love being the primary idea in the doctrine of 
John, and that which gives color to all the rest, we 
may expect that he will attach great importance to 
the appropriation of salvation by the individual. Love 
in fact supposes reciprocity. It is in vain that God 
has love enough for man to pardon him—it is in vain 
that the Word has become incarnate, and offered the 
redeeming sacrifice—if this infinite love obtains no 


* Συμφέρει ὑμῖν, iva ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω. John xvi, 7. 
{ Παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. τ John ii, 1. 


BOOK (itl.——-FIRST #CENTURY. 459 


response on earth. We have already seen that the 
Word prepares every man to receive eternal life by 
vivifying the divine germ within him. This includes 
the whole preparatory work of grace, and it is during 
this process, which is often gradual and prolonged, 
that the capacity for receiving divine things becomes 
enlarged or contracted. On the first contact with 
the incarnate Word the condition of souls is revealed. 
His manifestation is in itself their condemnation or 
vindication, since they then receive the fruits of their 
previous determination. They show then to which 
side they have inclined—whether they have chosen 
darkness, or have sought the light.* © John assigns a 
very large part to the operation of grace. It is God 
who first loves; it is the Word who chooses us, not 
we who choose the Word.+ This election is not, 
however, with him a fixed decree, which takes no 
account of human freedom. Faith, which is with 
John as with Paul, the sole means of salvation, or 
rather, the sole means of appropriating salvation, re- 
quires a creative act; it is a new and divine birth, of 
which the Spirit of God is the agent ;+ but it is at 
the same time a work, ¢#e work which contains in 
germ all other works.§ Faith is, in fact, not simply 
a trustful acceptance of pardon; it is first of alla 
spiritual view of God in the incarnate Word, accom- 
panied by an act of submission which leads us to 


*'O δὲ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται. John iii, 18, 19. 

t Οὐχ ὑμεῖς με ἐξελέξασθε, GAA ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμᾶς. John xv, 16. 

1 Οἱ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματός 
ἀνδρός, ahd? ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν. John i, 13. 

§ Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἔργον τοῦ Θεοῦ͵ ἵνα πιστεύσητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν 
ἐκεῖνος. John vi, 29. 


A60 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


follow Him: John x, 45: xu, 265 xiv,.7-9. =ltasivet 
more than this: it unites us so closely to its object 
that it assures to us its possession ; that object be- 
comes one with us, as the bread we eat becomes part 
of our bodily substance. John vi, 53. It is a real 
communion with the Son and with the Father ; by it 
we abide in Christ, deriving our nourishment from 
him as the branch from the vine. John xv, 1-4. Thus 
comprehended, faith communicates to us the three 
great attributes of God. By it we are made “of the 
truth,” or children of light, for we possess him’ who 
is the Truth, (John xu, 36;) we receive life, eternal 
and divine life, even before the barrier which divides 
us from the invisible world is taken away ;* and we 
are finally made perfect in love. To have Christ 
abiding in us, to enjoy close fellowship with him—is 
not this love, and love in the deepest and highest 
sense? 

St. John, who never separates theory from practice, 
idea from fact, the truth from its application, binds 
closely together justifying faith and holiness. The 
latter is, indeed, implicitly contained in the former. 
Thus from the absolute and ideal stand-point, the 
believer is asaint. ‘“ Whosoever is born of God doth 
not commit sin.” 1 John iii, 9. But the Apostle, who 
will make no compromise in the ideal, nevertheless 
recognizes the weakness of the actual Christian. All 
sin is, as he shows, a culpable inconsistency ; never- 
theless the Mediator still carries on his work of repa- 
ration for those who repent. John will lend no sanc- 
tion to a delusive confidence ; a life in sin he plainly 
declares to be incompatible with faith. He who truly 


* Ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον. John iii, 36. 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 461 


- believes is raised into a divine sphere, the sphere of 
love. To indulge hatred or bitterness is to quit this 
sphere, and to return into darkness. 1 John ili, 10-15 ; 
iv, 8. Having given us the theology of love, John 
gives us its morality. We ought to become like God, 
for, as Christians, we are born of him. The light of 
his love ought to shine within us, and the incarnate 
Word, who was his express image—made a sacrifice 
for us—ought to be the light of every regenerated 
man, as the creative Word was the light of every 
created man.* A holy society is founded in love— 
the society of the children of God, or the Church. 
The Apostle does not enter into any detail as to its 
constitution and organization. He only assumes the 
most complete equality among its members, since 
all have received “the unction of the Holy One, 
which teacheth all things.”+ There is no place fora 
system of external authority in the conception of 
St. John. 

His views of the future of the Church bear the same 
impress of spirituality. He-speaks in the gospel and 
the epistles as in the Apocalypse, of a general resur- 
rection of the dead, a final judgment, a glorious 
triumph of Christ, inaugurated by his return, and a 
terrible conflict with the powers of darkness ; but in 
his gospel he more clearly shows the connection of 
these great outward facts with the moral facts, which 


*’Ey τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχήν 
αὑτοῦ ἔθηκε. τ John iii, 16. 

t Καὶ ὑμεῖς τὸ χρίσμα ὃ ἐλάβετε az’ αὐτοῦ͵ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει, καὶ οὐ χρείαν 
ἔχετε, ἵνα τις διδάσκῃ ὑμᾶς" ἀλλ᾽ ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ χρῖσμα διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ 
πάντῶν, καὶ ἀληθές ἐστὶ καὶ οὐκ ἔστι ψεῦδος, καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑμᾶς, 
. peveite ἐν αὐτῷ. τ John ii, 27. 


462 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN: CHURCH. 


are their antecedents.* In a spiritual sense the res- 
urrection, the judgment, and the conflict with Anti- 
christ have already commenced. Those who hear 
the voice of the Son of man and live, are so many 
Lazaruses called to the life divine.t The separation 
of the darkness from the light effected by the preach- 
ing of the truth is asolemn judgment, and whosoever 
denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is Anti- 
christ. Lastly, in a mystical sense, the adorable 
Master is come again to his own.t But so far from 
these spiritual facts being incompatible with the 
external facts declared in the Revelation, they prepare 
the way for them. Afterso much suffering and strife, 
endured from the beginning of the world, divine love 
will at length win a glorious victory on the very scene 
of its conflicts. Even the brilliant colors of the 
Apocalypse fail to depict this triumph, for St. John 
exclaims in his first epistle: “It doth not yet appear 
what we shall be; but we know that when he shall 
appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as 
he is.”§ To be made like God—is not this the high- 
est possibility of the development of the creature? 
Is it not the realization of the sublime purpose of the 
redeeming Word? Is it not the fulfillment of the 


* See our note on the Apocalypse, in which we refute M. Reuss’s 
idea that there is a positive opposition between the fourth gospel and 
the Revelation. 

+ John v, 24-30. We hold with Liicke that it is not possible to 
' give a purely spiritual application to this passage. It presents the 
point where the external and the moral fact become inseparable. In 
verse 28, Jesus Christ appeals to the resurrection of the body, which 
he will effect on the last day, in order to establish his power to 
quicken and to judge dead souls. 

1 Πάλεν ἔρχομαι. John xiv, 3. 

§ ᾿Βὰν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα. 1 John iii, 2. 


BOOK IlI.—FIRST CENTURY. 463 


prayer of Christ, “that they all may be one; as thou 
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may 
be one in us.”* Having ascended to these heavenly 
heights, the theology of John is complete ; no mysti- 
cism can soar above it, however bold its flight. The 
perfect union of the creature with the Creator through 
the Word, is the ultimate expression of the doctrine 
of love; beyond it there is nothing. This is, there- 
fore, the closing utterance of the apostolic age; the 
conclusion, and not the refutation, of all that has gone 
before; the conciliation of all contradictions in the 
Church ; in a word, the last revelation from heaven, 
absolute truth, God himself. Freed from all error, 
comprehended in all its depth, it will ever be the 
grandest result wrought out by the historian of 
theology, who, bending over the book in which it 
was inscribed by the aged saint of Ephesus, seeks to 
decipher it from age to age. 


᾿ς τ Ν ᾽ Ne Gel τω a Στ OL) 
Iva καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν év ὦσιν. John xvii, 21. 


464 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


lat ΕΙΣ 


THE CHURCHES IN THE TIME OF ST. JOHN. 


§ I. External Condition. 


ISTORY finds few events of note to record in 

the period which extends from the destruction 
of Jerusalem to the close of the first century. It is a 
time of internal development, during which the 
Church is gathering up all the teachings received 
during the apostolic age. Missions are carried on 
on a less imposing scale. The propagation of the 
faith is, however, far from being arrested, for we can 
prove the existence, at the commencement of the fol- 
lowing century, of a large number of new Churches: 
Instead of losing ground in the countries where it had 
gained a footing, Christianity became firmly estab- 
lished. We see from the names of the Churches 
mentioned in the Revelation, that in Asia Minor, for 
example, the great cities where Paul had first 
preached the Gospel became centers of proselytism, 
from which the light spread into the neighboring 
towns. From Ephesus, Laodicea, and Colosse, the 
new faith cast forth its roots to Smyrna in Ionia—-a 
commercial and wealthy city—to Philadelphia in 
Lydia, and in Mysia to Thyatira, and, lastly, to Per- 
gamos, the ancient residence of the kings of Asia, 
once famous for its noble library. The same ex- 
pansive movement—the truth spreading itself by 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 465 


contact—was doubtless carried on in Greece, Africa, 
‘and Italy. 

Persecution from the close of the reign of Nero to 
the time of Domitian was not of a general character. 
It was local and intermittent, but it never entirely 
ceased. The most unimportant occasion was suffi- 
cient to makeit burst out afresh in a province. It was 
continuous in Palestine, where Jewish fanaticism had 
been stimulated by the very chastisements designed 
to rebuke it. We have cited the decrees of excom- 
munication, the effect of which was to break the last 
links between the Church and the Synagogue. But, 
even beyond Judza, the Jewish faction pursued its 
adversaries with implacable hatred. At Smyrna, as 
at Philadelphia, it greatly troubled the Christians, 
and succeeded in casting some of them into prison. 
Rev. ii, 9, 10; ii, 9. In spite of this declared hos- 
tility on the part of the Jews, the Christians were 
still often the victims of the antipathy felt for their 
adversaries. Their cause was constantly confounded 
with that of the obstinate rebels, who would not bow 
under the yoke of Rome.* The emperors were par- 
ticularly vigilant over any movement proceeding 
from the Jews. They knew that revolt might at any 
moment burst forth afresh among them, like fire 
among hot, smouldering ruins. The imperial police 
was always on the watch to espy the slightest symp- 
tom of rebellion. This explains the strange uneasi- 
ness manifested by Domitian in relation to the grand- 
children of Jude, the brother of the Lord. Hegesip- 
pus tells us that the Emperor, hearing that they were 
of the race of David, and so of the royal family 


= Gieseler, ‘‘ Kirchen-Geschichte,”’ i, 135. 
30 


466 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


of Judah, caused them to be brought before him. 
It appears from the narrative, that an attempt had 
been made to alarm the Emperor by connecting the 
Christian hope of the second coming of Christ with 
the intrigues of the Jews for the recovery of their 
independence. Domitian at once questioned the 
grandchildren of Jude as to the nature of the glorious 
kingdom for which they were looking.* He was only 
reassured by learning how poor they were, and by 
seeing their horny hands, which proved that these 
supposed rivals of Caesar were nothing more than 
simple laborers. This sensitive jealousy over his 
own imperial power led Domitian to revive the per- 
secution of the Christians. The Church had acquired 
sufficient importance, especially at Rome, no longer 
to escape observation. It had found adherents in the 
highest ranks of society, and a kinsman of the Em- 
peror—his own cousin, Flavius Clement—had em- 
braced the Christian faith. Surrounded with spies 
and informers, suspicious and cruel like all tyrants, 
emulating Nero in crime, and surpassing him in hy- 
pocrisy, Domitian could scarcely fail to persecute a 
numerous sect, increasing every day, which refused 
the profane homage demanded by his insensate pride. 
It is well known that no emperor, not even Caligula, 
made more overt pretensions than he to be worshiped 
as God. He caused his statue to be placed in the 
most venerated sanctuaries, and’ whole hecatombs 
were sacrificed before his altars.t He commenced 

*’EdoBeito yap τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Eusebius, ‘ Hist. 
Bécles.,? i, 20: 

+ Elva τὰς χεῖρας τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιδεικνύναι μαρτύριον τῆς αὐτουργίας. 


Eusebius, “* Hist. Eccles.,” iii, 20; Routh, “ Reliquize Sacree,”’ 1, 213. 
{ Plinius, ‘‘ Panegyr.,” c. lii. 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 467 


his decrees with these words: “ Our Lord and God 
has commanded that such and such a thing be done.”’* 
It was not lawful to speak of him in other terms. It 
was easy to bring before such a madman the charge . 
of high treason against the worshipers of the true 
God. Great numbers of the Christians became vic- 
tims ;¢ and, among others, Flavius Clement. His 
wife, Flavia Domitelli, was sent into exile in the Isle 
of Pontia, where she died. ‘ The husband and wife,” 
says the abbreviators of Dio Cassius, “ were sentenced 
as guilty of atheism.” Many others came under the 
same condemnation through their attachment to Juda- 
ism, that is, to Christianity regarded as a Jewish . 
sect. Some were put to death, others suffered the 
confiscation of their goods. { This persecution, of 
the details of which we have only vague information, 
must have been very bloody, for it was placed by the 
Christians of the next generation on a par with that 
of Nero.§ The more firmly Christianity became es- 
tablished, and the more widely it extended its con- 
quests, the more declared became the enmity of the 
pagan world toward it. | 


* << T)ominus et Deus noster hoc fieri jubet.’’. Suetonius, ‘* Domi- 
agi?! Gh, χα: 

t Πολλοὶ δὲ. χριστιανων ἐμαρτύρησαν κατὰ Δομετιανόν. Eusebius, 
earom. ΠΕΡῚ τῷ ὅτε “Ad Olymp:,” 218. 

1 ᾿Επηνέχθη δὲ ἀμφοῖν ἔγκλημα ἀθεότητος. Xiphilini, ‘* Epitome 
Dion. Cassius.,”’ 67, 14. 

§ This we infer from the following passage from the Apologue of 
Melito of Sardis to Marcus Aurelius: *‘ Μόνοι πάντων ἀναπεισθέντες 
ὑπὸ τινων βασκάνων ἀνθρώπων, τὸν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἔν διαβολῆ κατασσῆσαι 
λόγον ἠθέλεσαν Νέρων καὶ Δομετίανός.᾽" Of the emperors, Nero and 
Domitian alone, urged on by the counsel of some malevolent men, 
have sought to calumniate our religion. Routh, ‘‘ Relig. Sacre,” 
i, 114. 


468 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


5. II. LZuternal Condition of the Churches. Fterestes. 
Church Organization. 


The position of the Churches at the close of the 
apostolic age was one full of peril and temptation 
To the period of first enthusiasm, when no difficulty 
seemed to damp the ardor of zeal and love, had suc- 
ceeded a period when the obstacles to be overcome 
became more and more apparent, when numerous 
defections cast a doubt upon the fairest promises, 
when, finally, evils which had seemed completely sub- 
dued sprang again into life. We see, in fact, from 
the picture drawn in the Revelation of the seven 
Churches in Asia Minor, that shortly after the death 
of Peter and Paul, influences from without had effected 
a wide entrance in their midst.* There was not, in 
the case of these Churches, any violent crisis, as at 
Corinth, where the elements alien to Christianity 
came into strong collision, and the evil, like the good, 
was of a decided character. Such crises give hope of 
restoration to the truth as speedy as the aberration. 
But the case was very different to which St. John 
addressed himself in the book of the Revelation. 
The sap had almost ceased to circulate in the 
branches ; first’ love was ready to die,f and luke- 


* One of the most astonishing examples of the arbitrary criticism 
which has been used in the interpretation of the Apocalypse is the 
symbolical explanation frequently given of the names of the seven 
Churches, which are regarded as the types of seven periods of the 
history of the Church. This is a pure invention, without any basis in ~ 
exegesis. Of these seven Churches two only are in a prosperous con- 
dition—those of Smyrna and Philadelphia ; (Rev. ii, 9; iii, 8;) two 
are in a most deplorable state—those of Sardis and Laodicea; (iii, 2, 
15;) at Ephesus, (ii, 4-6,) at Pergamos, (ii, 13-15,) and at Thy- 
atira, (11, 19,) good and evil are nearly balanced. 

t Τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν πρώτην ἀφῆκας. Rev. ii, 4. 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 469 


warmness was taking the place of ardor and zeal. 
Rev. il, 15. Such a condition is all the more peril- 
ous, because it is unconscious and easily accompanied 
with serious self-deception. Since the time of their 
foundation the Churches had considerably increased ; 
they were still constantly gaining in external impor- 
tance. Many of the first generation of Christians— 
those who had taken the decisive step, and forsaken 
their idols for the true God—were dead. Nominal 
Christianity had crept into the Churches. Thus, 
some of them thought themselves rich while they 
were really in the deepest spiritual poverty. Rev. 
iii, 17. The world had joined hands with the 
Church, and as the world in those rich and volup- 
tuous cities of Asia Minor represented oriental cor- 
ruption, scandalous falls were sure to result from this 
fatal association of Christians with the heathen. 
The former did not always maintain in their relations 
with the latter the prudent reserve so necessary in 
contact with a social system deeply defiled by pagan- 
ism and its shameful practices. They were too often 
found taking their place at feasts, which were nat- 
urally and almost inevitably accompanied by sinful 
and impure indulgences. The very ties of kindred 
and friendship became serious temptations.* Nor 
were there wanting more subtle snares than those of 
sensuality. The spirit of rivalry was provoked, and 
men like Diotrephes found scope for their ambition 


* Φαγεῖν εἰδωλόθυτα καὶ πορνεῦσαι. Rev. ii, 14. Baur sees in this 
passage a clear condemnation of the ideas of St. Paul; but it must 
be observed, that John does not speak simply of eating things offered 
to idols ; he alludes, at the same time, to pagan debauch. He is not 
treating herea question of principle, but rebuking the melancholy in- 
roads of pazan corruption in the Church. 


470 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


in Churches which had acquired considerable impor- 
tance. 3 Johng, 10. This desire for pre-eminence is, as 
yet, kept within bounds, but it gives a presage of the 
assumptions of clerical domination in the age suc- 
- ceeding that of the Apostles. Nevertheless, faith and 
love still bear their fair fruits even in these Churches. 
They contain a nucleus of sincere believers, who, like 
Gaius, display all the Christian virtues, (3 John 5, 6,) 
and give full proof of their broad charity by heartily 
welcoming to their homes brethren from far countries, 
or the faithful missionaries who go from place to 
place. Many young Christians are also to be found 
who have overcome the evil one. 1 John ii, 13. ihe 
general condition of the Churches, however, fills 
John with just anxiety, because he sees clearly what 
will be the issue of this outward and nominal Chris- 
tianity, which is, as yet, restrained within certain 
limits, but which will ultimately stifle so many noble 
impulses in the Church, and will so often impede its 
progress. 

Heresy, during the period of John, is no longer 
vague and floating as in the preceding age ; it takes 
a more decided form. We have traced this process 
of transformation with reference to the Judaizing 
heresies which do not come within the scope of the 
Apostle, but which, from the time of the fall of Jeru- 
salem, gradually assumed a settled form. <A similar 
change is passing upon the heresies arising out of 
paganism, the first manifestations of which we noted 
in Asia Minor, where the double current of Western 
philosophy and Eastern theosophy met. Gnosticism 
is just emerging from its formative state. We cannot 
yet give a general description of the system, for we 


BOOK III.—BIRST CENTURY. 471 


- 


should be in danger of committing an anachronism, 
and attributing to the apostolic age that which really 
belongs to a much later period. When we come in 
. contact with the systems of Valentinus and Basilides 
we shall give a summary of all the various features 
of Gnosticism as they were successively developed. 
We shall then have a complete idea of this important 
reaction οὐ the spirit of paganism on the Church. 
We know already that Gnosticism is essentially dual- 
istic ; it rests upon that antagonism between matter 
and spirit which was a fundamental element of Greek 
philosophy and of all oriental religions. In the time 
of St. Paul, heresy terminated in an exaggerated ascet- 
icism, founded upon a false spirituality ; it had even 
gone so far as to deny the resurrection of the body. 
In the time of St. John the doctrine of the Gnostics 
took a wider range ; 1t tended more and more toward 
Docetism, that is, to the theory which holds the bodily 
existence of Christ to have been a mere semblance.* 
From the dualistic stand-point, in fact, the body, as 
the material element, is infected with evil; it was 
impossible, therefore, to suppose that He who was to 
overcome evil could have brought a body with him 
into the world. The natural consequence of these 
ideas was the doctrine that Jesus Christ had pos- 
sessed only a semblance, a shadow of corporeal life. 
It would be erroneous, however, to suppose that in 
the time of St. John Docetism had assumed a thor- 
oughly systematic form; it was a tendency rather 
than a doctrine; but it was constantly gaining ground. 
It is for this reason the Apostle insists with so much 
emphasis upon the incarnation: “ Every spirit,” he 


* Docetism comes from the verb δοκεῖν, to appear. 


472 EARLY YEARS OF THE “CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


says, “ which confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come 
in the flesh is not of God; this is that spirit of Anti- 
christ.”* We should note also the urgency with 
which he dwells on the essentially practical character 
of the truth—of that truth which needs not only to 
be known but to be fulfilled, and which implies abso- 
lute submission to the commands of God.t We per- 
ceive that even the partially developed Gnosticism of 
his day tended to reduce Christianity to a mere intel- 
lectual theory without influence upon the moral life, 
and that it fostered the serious inconsistencies of 
conduct to which we have alluded. It is not surpris- 
ing, that as it reinstated the fundamental principle of 
paganism, it should have justified its works and 
shielded its corruption. 

Like the prophet Balaam, and wicked Jezebel, who 
led the ancient people of God to make a league with 
the idolators, the heretics sought to lower the barrier 
between the Christians and the heathen. Thus the 
Revelation speaks of them in symbolic phrase, under 
those well-known names which so accurately charac- 
terized their conduct. Rev. ἢ, 14-20. It appears that 
these dangerous persons had found a leader in the 
ranks of those who, standing nearest to the Apostles, 
should have been the surest guardians of purity of 
doctrine and of life.t According to Hippolytus and 


* Πᾶν πνεῦνα, ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστι; καὶ 
τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου. I John iv, 3. 

1 Ὁ λέγων" ἔγνωκα αὐτόν’ καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ τηρῶν, ψεύστης 
ἐστὶ, καὶ ἐν τοῦτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν. I John ii, 4. 

1 Ἔχεις καὶ σὺ κρατοῦντας τὴν διδαχὴν τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν. Rev. ii, 15. 
The majority of German theologians maintain that the Nicolaitans 
were identical with the Balaamites. They argue from the etymology 
of the two words, Balaam, according to them, comes from the 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 473 


Irenzeus, the Deacon Nicholas asserted that the Chris- 
tians were not bound to abstain from heathen prac- 
tices, and that they might, without scruple, allow 
themselves sensual indulgence.* St. John character- 
izes such doctrine as the “depths of Satan.” + 
Already, in the heresies of this age, an idea began 
to gain currency which became widely diffused in the 
second century—the idea, namely, that the world was 
not created by the Supreme God, but by an inferior 
and antagonistic deity, known as the demziurge,t the 
spirit of evil and controller of matter. Cerinthus, the 
adversary of St. John, accepted this hypothesis of an 
inferior and evil creator; not, perhaps, with all the 
clearness of precision attributed to him by Irenzeus 
and Hippolytus, but, at least, in substance. It was 
a natural consequence from dualism, and seemed to 
guard the holiness of God much more effectually than 
the theory of emanations, since it supposed no con- 
tact on his part with evil and with matter. The two 


Hebrew verb ΦΈΞΗ which signifies to swallow, to destroy, and from 
the substantive DY, people. Balaam thus signifies, he who destroys 


the people. On the other hand, Nicolaitans comes from the two 
Greek words νικῶν λαόν, which mean to subdue, to seduce the people. 
We have thus two synonyms conveying one idea. (Hengstenberyg,) 
“ὁ Balaam,” 23.) This explanation seems to us very erudite and very 
subtle. The writer of the Apocalypse, however, distinguishes between 
those who hold the doctrine of Balaam and the Nicolaitans, (verse 15 
is connected with verse 14 of chap. ii, by a καὶ.) The testimony of 
Hippolytus, so well versed in the sources of heresy, appears to us con- 
clusive. τὸ Philosoph.,” p. 258. Comp. Irenzus, ‘‘ Contr. Heeres.,”’ 
i, 27; “*Epiphanes, Heeres.,”’ xxv. 

* ’Edidacxev ἀδιαφορίαν βιοῦ. ““ Philosoph.,” p. 258. 

+ Ta βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Rev. ii, 24. 

1 Demiurge comes from δημιουργὸς, fabricator. It is the name of 
the inferior deity, creator of the material world. 


474 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


principles being opposed to each other as eternally 
hostile, it was better to suppose that the evil principle 
had worked without any participation on the part of 
the spiritual. Cerinthus was by birth a Jew, but 
imbued with Alexandrian Gnosticism * and oriental 
Theosophy. The power which created the world was, 
according to him, a force separate from the Supreme 
God, and acting without his concurrence.t Jesus 
Christ was not born of a virgin; he was the son of 
Joseph and Mary, like other men, but distinguished 
from others by his righteousness and holiness. At 
his baptism the divine power, which is above all, de- 
scended upon him in the form of adove.{ From that 
time he wrought miracles, and revealed to men the 
unknown God. But, at the close of his life, this invis- 
ible power, which was the Christ, or the divine ele- 
ment in him, returned into heaven, and it was the 
man Jesus alone who suffered and rose again, while 
the celestial Christ was subject to no suffering because 
of his spiritual nature.§ This ingenious system skill- 
fully combined the Gospel narrative with the princi- 
ples of dualism. We meet, again and again, both in 
the fourth gospel and in the epistles of John, with 
allusions to these false doctrines, which were equiva- 


* Kapivbog dé τις αὐτὸς Αἰγυπτίων παιδείῳ ἀσκηθείς. Hipp., ““ Phil- 
osoph.,”’ p. 256. 

t Ὑπὸ δυνάμεως τινὸς κεχωρισμένης, τῆς ὑπὲρ τά ὅλα εξουσίας. Hipp., 
“6 Philosoph.,” p. 257. 

1 Kai peta τὸ βάπτισμα κατελθεῖν εἴς αὐτὸν τὸν τῆς ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα 
αἰθεντίας τὸν Χριστὸν. Hipp., ** Philosoph.,” p. 256. 

§ Προς δὲ τῷ τὲλει, ἀποστῆναι τὸν Χριστὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ. * Philo- 
soph.,” p. 257. Comp. Irenzus, i, 25. Cerinthus united the most 
exaggerated millenarian notions with this absolute dualism. He 
reverted by a circuitous path to materialism. 


BOOK IIJ.—FIRST CENTURY. 475 


lent to the negation of Christianity. The prologue 
of the fourth gospel is designed to establish that there 
is no separation between the Jesus and the Christ ; 
that the man Jesus was in very truth the Word made 
flesh. We read in the first epistle : “‘ Whosoever be- 
lieveth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. Who 
is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth 
that Jesus isthe Son of God?” 1 Johnv, 1,5. John 
has evidently in view the fatal errors of Cerinthus in 
reference to the baptism of the Saviour and his cruci- 
fixion, when he says: “This is he that cometh by 
water and blood, even Jesus Christ ; not by water 
only, but by water and blood.” * In other words, he 
wrought out our salvation no less when he shed his 
blood than when he came up out of the waters of 
Jordan. It is not true that in the hour of his death 
his divinity had forsaken him. Thus, at the close of 
the apostolic age, John, like Paul, plants with a firm 
hand the standard of the cross, to be a beacon of 
light shining through all the darkness of coming 
storms. The folly of the cross is to be for ever the 
wisdom of the Church, and against this rock all the 
surges of heresy will break in vain. 


Many causes contribute at this period to strengthen 
ecclesiastical organization. Wemay point, in the first 
place, to the development of heresy, and the sensible 
diminution in the miraculous gifts bestowed on the 
Church. Less miracles are cited of the Apostle John 
than of any of the rest. A new era is opening; the 
first full burst of waters from the divine spring is to 
be succeeded by the steady flow of the river between 


Ἐὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνου ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι. 1 John vy, 6. 


476 EARLY YEARS “OF THE CHRISTIAN ΘΉΒΕΌΟΘΗ.:. 


its banks. The miraculous does not cease; on the 
contrary, it assumes a permanent character, but it 
bears less and less the appearance of prodigy. In 
such a condition of things the organization of the 
Church would naturally take a more definite form. 
It is erroneous, however, to attribute to St. John the 
institution of episcopacy, properly so called. Fora 
long time yet to come we find only two orders in the 
hierarchy ; deacons and elders or bishops are alone 
mentioned as governing the Church. The angels of 
the seven Churches, to whom are addressed the 
solemn exhortations of the opening chapters of the 
Revelation, are not bishops, as has been asserted. 
Each one is the symbolic personification of a Church, 
or its guardian angel.* The name elder or bishop is 
still used interchangeably, and we gather from the 
beautiful account of St. John, given by Clement of 
Alexandria, that the ecclesiastical constitution of that 
time is eminently democratic. The Apostle calls the 
assembly to witness of the trust he has committed to 
one of its directors, so as to make the latter feel that 
he is in no way above his brethren, and that he is 
responsible to them for the manner in which he fulfills 


* M. Bunsen supports the old interpretation; (‘‘ Ignatius und seine 
Zeit.,” p. 1333) as does “Thiersch;, (work /quoted,.p. 2785)" aud 
Rothe, ““ Anfange,”? p. 423. But Ritschl points out, with justice, 
that the notion of an ideal representation of the Church is far more 
in harmony with the symbolism of the Revelation than the notion of 
a typical representation of bishops ; (work quoted, p. 417.) No stress 
can be laid on what is said about Diotrephes as establishing the exist- 
ence of the episcopate at this period, (3 John 9, 10;) for John speaks 
reprovingly of Diotrephes’ ambition. Thiersch regards the super- 
scription of the second epistle, ᾿Εκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ, as the designation of 
a metropolitan Church, not of an elect lady (work quoted, p. 282.) 
It is not needful to refute such a supposition. 


BOOK III.—FIRST CENTURY. 477, 


his duties. St. John gives explicit recognition to the 
inalienable rights of Christian people, when he de- 
clares that every believer receives for his guidance 
the anointing of the Holy Spirit. 1 John ii, 27, 28. 
This exalted view held by the Apostle of Christian 
freedom was still borne in mind in the second cen- 
tury, for in the Coptic constitutions of the Egyptian 
Church we find these words addressed in his name to 
all the Christians: “You have also the Holy Spirit 
for your guide, if any thing is wanting in our ex- 
hortations.”* 

The worship of the Church retained the same char- 
acter of freedom as in the preceding century. The 
narrative of Clement of Alexandria shows us that no 
hesitation was felt in freely discussing the interests 
of the Church in the sacred assemblies. The conver- 
sation between St. John and the bishop with reference 
to the young apostate took place at a time when the 
whole Church was gathered together. The Revelation, 
however, puts us on the track of a gradual transform- 
ation even then commencing. The glowing descrip- 
tion given by St. John of the heavenly worship is an 
indirect invitation to the Church on earth to conform 
to this ideal. That Church would, doubtless, delight 
to repeat or to paraphrase some of those sublime 
songs which gave such glorious expression to the 
religious feeling. Nothing could be more alien to 
the spirit of this grand epoch than the work of deter- 
mining liturgical formularies. Nevertheless, as one 
by one the miraculous gifts were withdrawn, the great 
monuments of apostolic inspiration would naturally 

* Ei δὲ τι παρῆκαμεν, τὰ πράγματα δηλώσει ὑμῖν, ἔχομεν γὰρ πάντες 
τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ. ““ Const. Eccles. Ζέργρί.,᾽ canon 44. 


478 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 


become the models and types of Christian adoration. 
We catch the echo of the anthems of the Revelation 
in those remarkable prayers of the Church of the 
second century, which have come down to us. 

With reference to Christian festivals, the observ- 
ance of the Lord’s day becomes more marked than 
formerly. It was already so called in commemoration 
of the resurrection.* But we find no trace of any 
formal substitution of the Christian for the Jewish 
Sabbath, nor any legal appointment of its observance. 
The only great annual feast of which mention is made 
is the Passover. The Churches of Asia Minor, fol- 
lowing the example of St. John, celebrated the anni- 
versary of the Lord’s death on the 14th of Nisan, at 
the same time as the Jews partook of the Paschal 
lamb. The anniversary of the resurrection thus fell 
on various days of the week, since it was always 
fixed for the third day after the 14th of Nisan. 
The Western Churches, on the other hand, always 
made the Easter, the closing day of the Passover 
fast, coincide with the Sunday.t This difference 
of practice produced in the following century a 
violent controversy, which we shall trace through its 
various phases. In the first century the peace of the 
Church was not so lightly broken. There is no 
ground for regarding as a concession to Judaism the 
fact that St. John fixed on the 14th of Nisan, in de- 
termining the date of the great Christian festival. 
The Apostle recognized in Jesus Christ the true 
Paschal Lamb, who had taken the place of the pro- 
phetic lamb, as the reality substitutes the type. By 

= Kupiaky ἡμέρᾳ. Rev. i, 10. 
+ Eusebius, “‘ Hist. Eccles.,” v, 23. 


BOOK lif.——FIRST CENEURY. 479 


celebrating the anniversary of the Redeemer’s death 
on that very day, he proclaimed the abrogation of the 
old covenant. It is further proved that this celebra- 
tion was not at all Jewish in character, but was thor- 
oughly in harmony with the spirit. of Christian 
worship.* 

With St. John the apostolic age closes. 

Revelation is before us in all its wealth, in its inex- 
haustible freshness, its infinite variety, and mighty 
unity. The various types of apostolic doctrine suc- 
ceeded and supplemented one another. But there is 
not one of these elements which the Church is not 
bound to make its own, and its whole history will be 
but a progressive appropriation of the true Christ— 
of him whose image in all its divine lineaments the 
first century of the Church faithfully preserved. 

That eventful and checkered history is about to 
begin. The last of the Apostles has passed away. 
The Church will no longer have that visible pro- 
tection, that gentle and firm guidance, which has 
hitherto saved it from so many perils ; but these very 
perils are necessary to its earnest appropriation of the 
truth. Though the Apostles are removed, He who 
gave the Apostles remains, and in him the Church 
will find light in all darkness, lifting up after every 
fall—victory over every foe. 


* Hippolytus says of the observers of the r4th day, who, m the 
second century followed the practice of John in the celebration of 
the Passover, that, on all other points, they were in agreement with 
the Church, (ἐν τοῖς ἑτέροις συμφωνοῦσι.) “ Philosoph.,” 275. This 
proves that some observed the 14th of Nisan without being Judaizers. 


Ξι 


ἣν 


NOLES. 


A, [See page 23.] 
LITERATURE OF THE SUBJECT. 


We shall not do more here than indicate the principal works on 
the apostolic age, these, at least, which have come under our par- 
ticular notice. It is scarcely needful to say that our fountain-head is 
the New Testament. We shall treat, in the course of this work, of 
the title of each of its books to our confidence. Christian Antiquity 
presents to us also a wealth of information. The “ Ecclesiastical 
History” of Eusebius ;* the writings of the “* Fathers”’ of the first three 
centuries, especially the “ Philosophoumena”’ of St. Hippelytus; the 
treatise of St. Jerome, “ De Viris illustribus Ecclesiz ;” the frag- 
ments of the early ‘‘ Fathers” contained in the ‘‘ Spicilegium”’ of Grabe, 
and in Routh’s *‘ Reliquize Sacre,” Ὁ have been constantly consulted 
by us. If we pass on to the various memorials of Christian antiquity, 
we should refer first of all, for the old Catholic school, to the 
“Annals”? of Baronius, the vast repertory of Catholic tradition, in 
which the erudition equals the lack of criticism; { and next, to the 
‘¢ Mémoires” of Lemain de Tillemont, which, while they are not at 
all more critical, are more conscientious, and are always valuable for 
reference. § The Catholicism of our day in France offers very few 
works on the history of the apostolic age. The crude medley, digni- 
fied by Rohrbacher with the name of “ Ecclesiastical History,” is be- 
neath serious notice; it is the most senseless of compilations. Ger- 
many has given to Catholicism a distinguished historian in Dollinger, 
but he is teo much fettered bya preimposed system to judge of facts 
with impartiality. A recent work of the same school, ‘‘ The History 


* Eusebii Pamphili, “‘ Eccles. Hist.,’’ libri decem. 
¢+ Joannes Ernestus Grabe, “Spicilegium 5. Patrum,’’? Oxoniz, 
2 vols. Routh, “ Reliquize Sacre,” 5 vols., 1846. 
1. Baronii, “‘ Annales Ecclesiastici,’’? 1588-1609. 
§ “< Mémoires pour servir a histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers 
siécles.” Paris, 1693, 16 vols. 
91 


482 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


of Revelation,” by Mesmer,* Professor of Theology, attempts to defend 
the hierarchy on historical grounds, with great moderation of language 
and ingenuity of thought, but always evidently under the influence of 
preconceived ideas. M. Albert de Broglie, in the prelimmary chapter 
of his Histery of the Fourth Century, has drawn a striking sketch of the 
first age of Christianity, but it is wanting In any scientific demonstra- 
tion, to which, indeed, it makes no pretense.* 

We need not enumerate here all the historical memorials of early 
Protestantism. We will content ourselves with mentioning only the 
**Centuries of Magdeburg” in Germany, and in France, the learned 
**Kcclesiastical History’ of Basnage.{ This erudite author occu- 
pies too much the controversialist’s stand-point to set forth with 
sufficient breadth the destinies of the primitive Church. In England, 
Church histories abound, but few are remarkable for criticism or his- 
torical connection. ‘The history of the early ages of the Church has 
received large contributions from Puseyism, and also from the nar- 
row dogmatism which persistently traces its own likeness in the the- 
ology of the Apostles. Some progress, however, has been already 
made under the imfluence of Germany. We may refer to the noble 
works of Howson, on the Life and Writings of St. Paul,§ (somewhat 
too diffuse and broken up by episodes ;) also to the commentaries of 
Dean Stanley and Professor Jowett on the epistles of the same Apos- 
tle. These distinguished divines have discovered the true secret of 
awakening interest in exegetical studies, by taking their stand on his- 
toric ground. Among the principal writings in France, up to the 
present time, we may mention M. Rillet’s ‘‘Commentary on the 
Epistle to the Philippians,” and M. Arnaud’s on the “‘ Epistle of St. 
Jude.” There are also valuable suggestions in the ‘* Sermons on St. 
Paul,” by A. Monod, and in many recent treatises) The “ Revue de 
Théologie,” founded at Strasburg by M. Colani, has touched on most 
of the great problems arising out of the apostolic age. We have 
given careful consideration to these works, even when we differed 
from their conclusions. We must not omit tonote a series of articles 
by M. Reville on ‘* The First Century of the Church,” published in 
the journal ‘‘ Le Lien,” (years 1856-7.) The learned work of M. 


* “Geschichte der Offenbarung,” von Alois Messmer, Fretburg in 
Brisgau, 1857. 

Τ “<L’Eglisse et ?Empire Romain au Quatriéme Siécle,” par A. de 
Broglie, Paris, 1856. 

{ “ Histoire de l’Eglise depuis Jésus Christ,” par Basnage. La 
Haye, 1724. 

δ “The Life and Epistles of St. Paul,” by W. J. Conybeare and 
J. 5. Howson, 2 vols., London, 1856. 


NOTES. ; 483 


Reuss on the ““ History of the Theology of the Apostolic Age,”’ which 
we have constantly before us, either for purposes of consultation or 
of refutation, forms a kind of link between France and Germany, 
leading us into the much-tilled field of German criticism.* 

It would be useless to attempt to catalogue the works which have 
accumulated during the last fifty years in Germany—that fatherland 
of modern theology. Wewill only cite the most characteristic. Let 
us point first to the vast treasures of exegesis—De Wette’s exegetical 
manuals, so full and so exact ; the graphic commentaries of Olshausen 
and Tholuck; the great works of Lticke on the ‘‘ Writings of St. 
John,” and of Bleek on the ‘‘ Epistle to the Hebrews,” and many 
other monuments of learning, so solid and so reliable that they furnish 
inexhaustible resources to the student of the primitive age of the 
Church. Passing on to the history of the period, properly so called, 
we place in the first rank Neander’s ‘‘ History of the Foundation of 
the Apostolic Church,” Ὁ of which there is a French translation by 
M. Foutanés, but which is better consulted in the last German edition. 
In it we find all the profound piety, the breadth of view, the elevated 
spirituality, the historical acumen, which characterize the great histo- 
rian. We owe him much, though we feel that he no longer meets all 
the necessities which have arisen out of the incessant discussions of the 
last few years. We mention, as another work belonging to the same 
class, the book of Dr. Philip Schaff, Professor at Mercersburg, in the 


>?) 
United States. It displays much learning, and a remarkable talent 
for exposition, but, perhaps, too much theological caution, and a sort 
of timidity in coming to clear conclusions on delicate questions.{ 
Lange’s ‘* Apostolic Age,” lately published, combines the merits and 
the faults of this original and fertile theologian, who is as bold as he 
is scholarly, and who needs to be consulted with sympathy, and, at 
the same time, criticised with care.§ ‘‘ The History of the Apostles, or 
the Progress of the Church from Jerusalem to Rome,” by Baumgarten, 
is notable for attentive and searching study of the sacred documents, 
and as an animated exposition, which draws copiously from original 
sources.|| The author enables us to watch with great clearness the 


* ἐς Historie dela Théologie Chrétienne au Siecle Apostolique,” par 
Ed. Reuss, Strasburg, 1852. 

+ “Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christlichen Kirche 
durch die Apostel,” von Aug. Neander, 4th edition, Hamburg, 1847. 

t “Geschichte der Apost. Kirche,” von Ph. Schaff, Leipzig, 1854. 

§ “Die Geschichte der Kirche. Das Apostolische Zeitalter,”’ von 
J. P. Lange, 1853. 

|| < Die Apostel-Geschichte oder der Entwickelungsgang der Kirche 
von Jerusalem bis Rom,” von Baumgarten, 1852. 


484 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


transformations wrought in the apostolic Church, between its early 
days and the triumph.of Christian universalism, without, however, 
exaggerating the divergences, and without representing two opposing 
Churches in the bosom of primitive Christianity. : 

The sacerdotal and hierarchical views, or rather the Irvingite idea, 
is represented by Thiersch. In spite of the narrowness of his princi- 
ples, his ‘‘ History of the Apostolic Age”? is written with so much 
piety, skill, and delicacy that it constantly sustains the interest in his 
theme. Thiersch is an adversary to be opposed only with feelings of 
sympathy and gratitude.* 

The Ttibingen school has its most eminent representative in Baur, 
its learned head. His book on “ St. Paul,” and his “‘ History of the 
First Three Centuries,’’—especially the pages treating of the first cen- 
tury—comprise the whole programme of that theological school, 
which, after having outdone itself in Schwegler’s book on the ““ Times 
Succeeding the Age of the Apostles,’’t has pursued a more moderate 
track in the works of Hilgenfeld, and still more of Ritschl, of whom 
we would say, as of Thiersch, he is a useful adversary, from whom 
there is much tolearn.{ Ewald occupies a place apart in these discus- 
sions on the New Testament, as in those on the Old. We may no- 
tice, also, a polemical work by Lechler, in opposition to the Tubingen 
school ;|| the ‘* History of the Sacred Writings of the New Testa- 
ment,” by M. Reuss ;{ and for Biblical theology, the excellent book 
of Schmid, of Tiibingen.** Beyond these general indications we have 
carefully noted, at the foot of each page, the works quoted. 


B. [See page 23.] 
THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE ACTS. 


It is extremely difficult to fix with precision the detailed chronology 
of theapostolic age. It is necessary very carefully to guard against any 


* ** Die Kirche vom Apostolischen Zeitalter,” von W. J. Thiersch, 
1852. 
t+ “6 Das Nachapostolische Zeitalter,” von Albert Schwegler, 2 vols., 
Tiibingen, 1846. 

{ ‘“ Entstehung der Altkatholischen Kirche,” yon Ritschl. Bonn, 
1830. A second edition has just appeared. 

§ ‘ Die Sendschreiben des Apost. Paulus,” von Ewald, 1857. 

| “‘ Das Apostolische und das Nachapostolische Zeitalter,” von 
Lechler, second edition, 1857. 

Ἵ “‘ Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments,” 
von Id. Reuss, second edition, 1853. 

** Schmid, ‘‘ Biblische Theologie,” 1853. 


NOTES. 485 


thing arbitrary, and to be satisfied, apart from some certain data, with 
approximate results. Wieseler, in his learned work on the ‘ Chro- 
nology of the Acts,’’* has been, in our opinion, too much carried away 
by his desire to fix the date ofall the principal events. He multiplies 
ingenious combinations, but he does not succeed in determining with 
certainty the order of time, because his calculations are too often 
based upon hypothesis. There are, however, certain fixed points to 
which we can hold fast, and which serve as pole-stars for the history 
of the primitive Church; these are its points of contact with general 
secular history. We thus obtain four precise dates: 1. That of the 
death of Herod Agrippa. Acts xii, 23. 2. The famine under Clau- 
dius. Acts xi, 28. 3. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome. Acts 
Xxvilil, 2. 4. The entry of Festus upon his office. 

Herod Agrippa died in the year 44, according to Josephus, (‘‘ An- 
tiquities,’”’ books xix, ix, 2.) The same author places the great fam- 
ine, which took place in the reign of Claudius, under the proconsulate 
of Caspius Fadus and of Tiberius Alexander. Josephus, “‘ Antiquities,” 
xx, v, 2. Now Caspius Fadus, having been sent into Judea after the 
death of Agrippa, the famine could not have commenced earlier than 
the end of the year 44. Indeed, it only reached Judeea some time after 
the death of the King, for at that time the Sidonians, under stress of 
the dearth, came to the Jews to be succored out of the abundance in 
their country. It was, then, only in the course of the year 45 that 
Judzea was reached by the scourge, and that Paul and Barnabas car- 
ried up to Jerusalem the offerings of the Church at Antioch. 

The expulsion of the Jews from Rome Suetonius (‘¢ Claudius,”’ 25) 
ascribes to Claudius. Tacitus, (‘f Annals,” xii, 52,) who, under the 
name of ‘* Mathematici,” includes all the abettors of Eastern super- 
stitions, places this expulsion in the year 52.¢ It would be at this 
time that Priscilla and Aquila quitted Rome. 

The date of the entry of Festus on his office is determined in the 
following manner. According to Josephus, (‘* Antiquities,”’ vill, xxii,) 
Felix, deposed for his exactions, only escaped condemnation through 
the intercession of Pallas. If this be so, then Pallas himself could 
not yet have fallen into disfavor. Now his disgrace and death took 
place in the year 62. Buta year does not suffice for all that was 
accomplished during the proconsulate of Festus. Festus’s entry upon 
his office must then be carried back at least to the year 60. 

The date of the death of Herod Agrippa gives us the date of the 


* “Chronologie des Apostolischen Zeitalters,” von Karl Wieseler, 
1848. 
fa Waeseler.” py. 125. 


486 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH: 


death of James, and fixes it in the year 44. The date of the famine 
supplies that of the journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, to 
bear thither the collection made at Antioch. Clearly, the conversion 
of the Apostle must be placed several years earlier; for, according to 
Galatians i, 16-24, Paul waited three years after his conversion before 
he went up to Jerusalem. After that, he stayed for a time at Ceesarea 
and at Tarsus, (Acts ix, 30,) and then at Antioch. Acts xi, 26. 
These various sojourns, of which we have no precise details, may have 
occupied several years. The conversion of St. Paul must then be 
placed between the years 38 and 40. The journey to Jerusalem, of 
which he speaks in the Epistle to the Galatians, (Gal. 11, 1,) and 
which he states to have been fourteen years after his conversion, 
cannot be relied upon as fixing the date of the latter, since the chron- 
ological indications given by the Apostle are very vague. Compare 
Gal. i, 21, with Gal. ii, 1. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome, 
coinciding with his meeting with Priscilla and Aquila at Corinth, 
enables us to fix his arrival in that city in the year 52, and his appear- 
ance before Festus between 58 and 60. Thus the first period of the 
apostolic age extends from the year 30 to 48 or 50. The conversion 
of Paul took place about the year 38, and the death of Stephen about 
37. The first missionary journey of Paul commences after the year 
45, probably in 46, and must have concluded about 50. About this 
time commences the second period. The sojourn of Paul at Corinth 
takes place in 52, and between 52 to 58 he makes his last great 
journey. We shall see presently that the second period of the apos- 
tolic age probably finishes with the life of the Apostle, about the 
year 56. 


C. [See page 23.] 


ON THE PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF THE HISTORY OF THE PRIMITIVE 
CHURCH. 


Our principal source is the book known under the name of the 
“Acts of the Apostles.” Of this book we must, first of all, prove 
the credibility. Its authenticity was generally acknowledged in the 
early Church, from the time of Irenzeus.  Quoniam autem is Lucas 
Anseparabilis fuit a Paulo, et cooperarius ejus in Evangelio, ipse fecit 
manifestum.”” Acts xvi, 10. (Irenzeus, “ Ady. Heres,” Book III, 
chap. xiv, 1.) The letter of the Church at Lyons to the Churches in 
Asia Minor quotes the Acts. (See Eusebius, “Hist. Ecc.,” V, 
chap. xi.) Clement of Alexandria ascribes the Acts to Luke: Καθὼς 


NOTES. 487 


καὶ ὁ Λουκὰς ἐν ταῖς πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστόλων ἀπομνημονεύει τὸν Παῦλον 
λέγοντα ἄνδρες ᾿Αθηναῖοι. (‘*Stromat.,” v, 588.) See also Tertullian : 
“Cum in eodem commentario Lucz tertia hora orationis demon- 
stretur.” (‘De jejun.,” chap. x, ‘De Baptismo,” chap. x.) Earlier 
than Irenzeus, we find allusions in the Apostolic Fathers and in Justin 
Martyr to passages in the Acts. There is a striking agreement 
between the narrative of Luke and the manner in which these Fathers 
speak of the first century of the Christian Church. We may then 
say that the external evidence is in favor of the authenticity of the 
Acts. It remains to be seen if the internal evidence is as unfavorable 
as has been asserted. The Tiibingen school has given a categorical 
denial to the authenticity of the book of the Acts. It regards it as 
a production of the second century, the object of which is to facilitate 
the combination of Judaizing Christians with the Christian disciples 
of Paul. It is not a history; it is a compromise attempted in the 
form of history. The author has endeavored to effect a sort of retro- 
spective reconciliation between Peter and Paul; in doing so he has 
only carried out the impulse of the Church of his time, which felt it 
néedful to efface the memory of irritating controversies. In order to 
attain this end, he could not do better than put into the mouth of 
Peter the doctrines of Paul, and tone down all that was most emphatic 
in the discourses of the latter. Schwegler and Baur assert, that the 
Paul of the Acts is not the Paul of the Epistles, who, in their view, 
is much more powerful in controversy.* M. Reuss, who is never 
untrue to his critical sagacity, assigns, as also does De Wette, its tra- 
ditional date to the book of Acts; but he appears to us to make too 
large a concession to the Tubingen school in allowing that the history 
of the first century has been made to undergo, in the Acts, more or 
less modification, to subserve the interests of a reconciliation subse- 
quently effected between the parties.f 

Baur and Schwegler ground their theory on a supposed deep division 
between the Apostles, a division which they hold to have continued 
until their death, The refutation of this error will become apparent 
from the history. We shall show that there were no sharp and bitter 
polemics, except between St. Paul and the false teachers of Corinth 
and Galatia, and that if his proclamation that the Gospel was as wide 
as the world caused at first a certain degree of surprise, the agreement 


* Schwegler, ‘‘ Nachapostolisches Zeitalter,” ii, 111. Baur, ‘‘ Paul- 
Us, 3p-25-5 + Was Christenthum, der drei erst. Jahr,” p.:112. 

t Reuss, “ Histoire de la Theologie Chrétienne au Siécle Apos- 
tolique,” II, p. 591. ‘‘Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften des 
IN? $210. : 


488 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


between him and the other Apostles was immediately realized. No 
place is left, therefore, for a subsequent reconciliation of men who 
had never been enemies. So long as the genuineness of the first 
Epistle of St. Peter is admitted, it will be impossible to maintam that 
there is any radical opposition between the two Apostles. There was 
no occasion for a falsification of facts on their behalf in order to show, 
after their death, that a good understanding had existed between them 
during their life. The author of the book of Acts is not an unintelli- 
gent chronicler, who does no more than furnish, as it were, the mere 
material, the bare facts of the history. He is a thoughtful historian, 
who grasps the connection of events. The picture which he paints 
has perspective and a horizon; the present is illuminated by the 
future ; from the very commencement of his book, he leads us to look 
for the solution of disputed problems. ‘This solution he finds in the 
substitution of Christian universalism for that which was peculiar to 
the Jewish dispensation; but if we are right in our idea, that this 
solution marks in reality the close of the first period of the history of 
the apostolic Church, he fulfilled his duty, as a historian, in leading 
our expectations toward it. We can discern no trace of falsification 
in his narrative. He does not attempt, in any way, to disguise the 
Judaistic character of the worship of the Church at Jerusalem ; he 
lets us see it fairly, in its devotion to the Temple-services and adher- 
ence to all the observances of the ceremonial law. The first sermons 
of Peter are strongly tinged with Old Testament coloring ; they show 
no trace of the broad spirit of Christianity ; salvation appears to him 
still to belong first to the seed of Abraham. Acts ti, 39. The objec- 
tion drawn from the difference of language used by St. Paul in the 
Acts and in the Epistles presents no serious difficulty. The book of 
the Acts purports rather to give a narration of the foundation of the 
Churches than to give a picture of their inner life and conflicts. It 
was natural that the language of Paul, the missionary, should differ 
somewhat from that of Paul, the controversialist. But how many 
times in the Acts does not his speech wax warm and eloquent, and 
remind us of some passages in the letters to the Corinthians and Ga- 
latians. Acts xili, 38-42, 46-48; xxiii, 3; xxviti, 25-28. 

It has been asserted that the Acts are a compilation of several doc- 
uments. To us, however, there appears throughout a unity of style 
and of composition too striking to allow us to suppose it the work of 
more than one hand, and ¢/a¢t the very hand which penned the third 
gospel.* We see no sufficient ground for granting the hypothesis 


* See De Wette, “" Apostol. Geschichte Einleit.,” p. 4, and also the 
ar ticle “Lucas,” in the ‘* Encyclopédie Herzog.” 


NOTES. ἃ 480 


that Timothy may have been the narrator of the second part of the 
Acts, that in which the narrator speaks as the direct witness of the 
events he records. Clearly the manner in which the writer speaks of 
Timothy contradicts such a supposition. Acts xix, 223 xx, 4. 

The voice of tradition, which ascribes to Luke the composition of 
the Acts, appears to us the best sustained opinion ; it is well known 
that he was one of the companions of Paul in his last journeys. Col. 
iv, 14; Phil. 24; 2 Tim.iv, 11. Weare quite prepared to admit that 
he made use for the Acts, as for his Gospel, of various documents. 
The letters and discourses inserted in the history were probably not 
written from memory. The date of the composition it is impossible 
to fix with certainty. It appears to us that the book which closes so 
abruptly, must have been written before or shortly after the death 
of St. Paul. 


D. [See page 32.] 


THE MIRACLE OF PENTECOST. 


It is not to be denied that the narrative of St. Luke presents some 
serious difficulties. It is not easy, in the first place, to understand 
the object of the miracle, for the foreign Jews who were at Jerusalem 
all understood the Aramaic tongue. In the next place, the extraordi- 
nary outpouring of the Spirit does not appear in other passages of the 
Acts, to be accompanied with the gift of tongues. Acts x, 44. In 
the third place, the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν which is mentioned in 1 Cor. 
xiv, 2, is very different from the gift of tongues at the Pentecost ; for 
the person speaking with tongues at Corinth, so far from having the 
privilege of being understood by strangers, needs an interpreter in his 
own Church. Explanations have been multiplied of this difficult 
problem of sacred criticism. Some, like Bilroth, have seen in the 
gift of tongues at the Pentecost the recovery for the moment of the 
primitive language of mankind. Others, like Bunsen,* suppose that 
the first Christians at the Pentecost spoke the usual Aramaic language, 
which all would comprehend, instead of the sacred tongue, the ancient 
Hebrew, which had till then been specially used for purposes of wor- 
ship. The astonishment of the hearers would be excited by this fact, 
so entirely new, and, it may be added, so much in harmony with the 
spirit of the gospel covenant. But, in order to admit this supposi- 
tion, it is necessary to set aside the sacred narrative, the purport of 


* Introduction to the second English edition of Hippolytus. 


490 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


which is evidently something different. Olshausen, in his com- 
mentary, likens the gift of tongues to a magnetic phenomenon. The 
Apostles, reading the hearts of their hearers, employed for them their 
own language; a strange theory, which places the inspired teacher 
in absolute dependence on those whom he is to teach. Neander 
identifies the gift of tongues at Pentecost with the gift of tongues at 
Corinth, and sets down as errors on the part of St. Luke those details 
of the narrative which do not accord with this explanation.* 

For ourselves, we should be very slow to admit that, on a fact of 
such importance, the primitive tradition of the Church can be erro- 
neous or inexact. We see no difficulty in believing that the miracle 
of the gift of tongues assumed a special character on the day of Pen- 
tecost. It was the language of ecstacy, and in this respect resembled 
the gift of tongues at Corinth, but was distinguished from the latter 
by its intelligibility. Why should not the same miracle have assumed 
various forms in the apostolic age? Its extraordinary and unique 
character on the day of Pentecost is explained by supposing that the 
miracle reached on that day, as it were, its mightiest development. 
It was a glorious completion of the divine symbolism, which we have 
recognized in the marvelous circumstances accompanying the first 
outpouring of the Spirit. 


E. [See page 140.] 
THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. 


The question of the Council and the Conference at Jerusalem is one 
of those which has called forth in modern times the most lively dis- 
cussions. The Tubingen school, starting with the supposition that 
the narrative of the Acts, (chap. xv,) and that of the Epistle to the 
Galatians, (chap. ii,) refer to the same fact, naturally draw conclusions 
adverse to St. Luke. Twoleadingimportant contradictions are pointed 
out between the two accounts. Ist. In the Acts the conferences are 
public; in the Epistle to the Galatians they are private. Baur, 
** Paulus,” p. 115. ‘* Das Christenth. der drei erst. Jahrhund.,”’ pp. 

2, 53. We have already replied to this objection by showing that 
the very nature of the questions under debate explains the coincidence 
of public and private conferences, When Baur declares that the si- 
lence of Paul, in the Epistle to the Galatians, as to the decision at 
Jerusalem, is inexplicable, he forgets that the Apostle had to treat in 


* Neander,-** Phlanz:,234," p28. 


NOTES. 401 


Galatia only of the question touching his own apostleship, and that, 
consequently, the result of the private conferences alone concerned 
him. Let us remember, also, that the decree issued from Jerusalem 
was only of transitional force. 2d. Schwegler says, that according 
to the account in Actsthe Apostles are perfectly agreed (“Ὁ Nachapost. 
Zeit.,” i, 126,) while in the Epistle to the Galatians they appear 
greatly at variance among themselves. Both assertions are equally 
inexact. The Apostles, in the Acts, show a broad and conciliatory 
spirit, but it is contestible that there is, nevertheless, a wide distance 
between the view of Paul and that of James. On the other hand, it 
is impossible to find in the Galatians any trace of a serious opposition 
among the Apostles. We see them, on the contrary, giving each 
other the right hand of fellowship. Gal. ii, 9. Great stress is laid on. 
the slightly ironical expressions of Paul: ᾿Απὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναι 
τι. Oe δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι. Gal. 11, 6-9. But the irony here is 
directed not against the Apostles themselves, but against those who, 
from a party spirit, exaggerated their apostolic authority to the depre- 
ciation of that of Paul. 3d. The Tubingen school, in order to dis- 
credit utterly the narrative of Luke, seeks to establish a contradiction 
between the speeches made at the Council at Jerusalem, and the re- 
sults obtained. These speeches, it is said, are animated by a liberal 
spirit, while the result of the council sanctions the triumph of the 
Judaizing party. But our adversaries forget that the speech of James 
is not identical with that of Peter. The former represented at that 
time the majority of the Church; he retained more than one Jewish 
scruple, while at the same time strongly desiring union and concilia- 
tion. In what deliberative assembly do we not often see the vote 
given to the middle party, though the most advanced liberalism may 
have found a voice? Wedo not admit, however, that the council 
did insure a triumph to the Judaizing party. That party received a 
death-blow from the decision, which declared that circumcision was 
no longer obligatory on proselytes brought out of paganism. The 
Tubingen school has supported itself mainly on the second of the con- 
ditions, which were imposed on the neophytes from foreign countries— 
the abstaining from all impurity. While Schwegler (“‘ N. A. I.,” 127) 
sees in the word wopverd the prohibition of second marriages, Ritschl, 
in his learned work, (‘“‘Entstehung der Altcatholisch. Kirche,” 
pp- I15-126,) sees in it the interdiction of those consanguineous mar- 
riages forbidden by the Levitical law. Leviticus xvuli.* But this is 


* A second edition has just appeared. In it the author shows him- 
self still further removed from the views of the Titbingen school. 


492 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


attaching a very remote meaning to a very simple expression. The 
able theologian endeavors to show that in its essence, the decree of 
the Jerusalem Council forms the foundation of the ‘‘ Clementines ” 
and of the Ebionite system. But it is evident tous that the renunci- 
ation of the rite of circumcision, after the lapse of a century or more 
from the time of the Council, was a matter of small importance. 
For the Council at Jerusalem it was a large concession; a century 
later it was an established fact ; and the significance of the victory 
could not be revived. Jitschl’s idea appears to us, then, only admis- 
sible, supposing the discussions at the Council to be inventions, and 
the decree itself alone authentic. The deliberation seems to us in 
perfect harmony with the result. We have already replied to the ob- 
jection drawn from the quarrel between Peter and Paul at Antioch. 


F.. [See page 203.] 
ON THE SUPPOSED SECOND CAPTIVITY OF PAUL. 


A large number of writers, both ancient and modern, have admitted 
a second captivity of the Apostle Paul. Eusebius* and Jerome f 
support it with their testimony. Among modern writers Neander 
(““ Pflanz.,” i, 538) holds the same opinion. We are not prepared to 
admit it, and we adopt in this respect the views of M. Reuss} and of 
Wieseler.§ We shall confine ourselves to a refutation of Neander, 
who has presented with great ability all the arguments in favor of the 
second captivity of Paul. The learned historian does not attach 
much importance to the testimony of Eusebius, thus expressed : 

“It is reported that after having presented his defense, the Apostle 
departed to continue his apostolic mission, and that he returned a 
second time to Rome, there to suffer martyrdom. At that time, 
while in bonds, his second letter to Timothy must have been written.” 
It is clear that Eusebius does not affirm the fact ; he merely says, ‘‘ It 
is reported.” It is only the echo of a tradition, of which he does 
not assume the responsibility. This tradition rests evidently on the 
famous passage of Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians. 
It runs thus: 

** Paul, having preached righteousness through the whole world, and 

* Eusebius, °° Hist.-Eceles.;” a, 25. 

+ Hieronym., ‘In Esaiam,” xi, 14.. 

t ‘* Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften, N. T.,” p. 125. ‘“* Revue 
de Théologie,” 2d vol., 3d part, p. 150. ~ 

§ Wieseler, ‘‘ Chronol. des Apost. Zeit.,” p. 521. 


NOTES. 493 


having reached the uttermost parts of the West, suffered martyrdom 
under the emperors, thus departed from their world.’’* This passage 
appears conclusive to Neander. He insists strongly on the expression, 
“The uttermost parts of the West.” This appears to him to point 
to Spain, where Paul declared his intention to preach the Gospel. 
Rom. xv, 24. The latter declaration does not appear to Neander as 
irrefragable proof, for he admits, as we do, that Paul, though an 
Apostle, might form a project and yet be prevented from carrying it 
out. Combining this declaration, however, with the testimony of 
Clement, he draws the conclusion that Paul was actually enabled to 
fulfill it. But it is necessary to ascertain if the passage of Clement 
has in truth the signification attached to it. Wieseler has well shown 
that the text bears evident traces of interpolation, and cannot be 
relied upon with certainty. Then, also, the tone of Clement in this 
portion of his first letter to the Corinthians is not that of the histo- 
rian, but of the orator, who uses hyperboles of speech. When he 
says that Paul preached the Gospel through the whole world, he 
makes no claim to be taken literally, and to affirm that Paul went 
into Gaul or Britain. He is not less hyperbolic when he uses the 
expression, ‘‘ The uttermost parts of the West.” Was not Rome the 
metropolis of the Western world? To preach the Gospel at Rome, 
was not this to preach it to the whole of the West? The vague 
expression of Eusebius, already quoted, ὁγόλος ἔχει, proves that in his 
time it was not considered permissible to take the passage of Clement 
literally. It does not seem to us needful to have recourse to the too 
ingenious explanation of M. Reuss, who sees in this passage a bold 
and poetic image—a comparison of the career of Paul to that of 
the sun.t 

The other proof adduced by Neander is founded on exegesis. He 
bases it on the second Epistle to Timothy, in which Paul seems to 
speak of his deliverance. 2 Tim. iv, 16. We see no necessity for 
admitting this explanation, since the deliverance of which the Apostle 


Ὁ Clement, ἐς Ep. ad Corinth.,”” chap. 5. 

+ A fragment from the canon of Muratori is also called in evidence. 
It runs thus: ‘* Sed profectionem Pauli ad urbe id Spaniam proficis- 
centis.” Bunsen, ‘* Analecta Antiniczena,”’ i, 139. But it isnot possible 
to draw conclusions of any certainty from so mutilated a text. All 
that can be inferred from it is, that at a period even then remote, the 
tradition of a journey of Paul into Spain was current in the Church. 
It was founded evidently upon the passage Rom. xv, 24. The passage 
of Dionysius of Corinth, quoted by Eusebius, (‘* Hist. Eccles.,” ii, 25,) 
which states that Peter and Paul founded the Church at Corinth, and 
then came to Rome together, has clearly no historic value. 


494 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


speaks may very well be understood of the good effect produced by 
his first appearance before the imperial tribunal. Neander maintains 
that the manner in which Paul points out the heresies of Ephesus 
implies a recent journey to that place. 2 Tim. ii, 17. But we know 
how easy it was for him in the early stages of his captivity to obtain 
exact and frequent information as to the state of the Churches. ‘The 
most plausible reason adduced by Neander is drawn from some per- 
plexing features of the epistle, which seem to point to a recent 
journey of the Apostle in Asia Minor. For instance, he asks for his 
cloak and the parchments left at Troas. 2 Tim. tv, 12. But this may 
have reference to the journey from Troas, of which we read in Acts 
xx, 5. The parchments might be required by Paul for his defense, 
and he might not until this time have had an opportunity of having 
them brought to him. When he says (2 Tim. iv, 20) “ Trophimus 
have I left at Miletum sick,” it does not necessarily imply that he 
had been there himself. May we not suppose, with Wieseler, that 
Trophimus accompanied Paul in his journey from Asia Minor to 
Rome, and that when the travelers stopped at Myra in Lycia, (Acts 
XXvil, 5,) ἃ town very near to Miletum, Trophimus was compelled by 
sickness to stop, and went on to Miletum? Paul’s reference to the 
fact in his second letter to Timothy may be accounted for by suppos- 
ing that he had need of the witness of Trophimus in the preparation 
for his trial, and it may be for the same reason that he speaks of 
Erastus, who ‘“‘abode at Corinth,” (2 Tim. iv, 20,) for the latter, 
who, we learn from Rom. xvi, 23, was one of the chamberlains of the 
city, might be able to render him valuable service on his trial. With 
reference to the reasons drawn by Neander from the date of the First 
Epistle to Timothy, and from that of the letter to Titus, we have 
already set these aside by accepting the hypothesis of a journey made 
by Paul into Europe, during his stay at Ephesus. We have also 
obviated the objection founded on the growth of heresies in Asia 
Minor, by proving the antiquity of those heresies, as shown in Paul’s 
farewell address at Miletum. Thus we hold none of the arguments 
in favor of a second captivity of Paul to be conclusive. We see two 
serious objections to this hypothesis: 1. The difficulty of supposing 
that Paul can have obtained a regular trial from Nero, after the ter- 
rible persecution recorded by Tacitus. 2. The small probability that 
the main facts of the first captivity, such as the appeal to Cesar, 
should have been repeated in the very same manner in the second, 


NOTES. 495 


G. [See page 204.] 
THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL. 


We admit the full authenticity of all the epistles to which the name 
of Paul is attached, with the exception of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
which we attribute to Apollos. There are some about which no 
question at all is raised. The Epistles to the Galatians, to the 
Romans, and those to the Corinthians, are beyond a doubt. Baur 
himself admits their authenticity. The two Epistles to the Thessalo- 
nians have been attacked by some on the ground that they are insig- 
nificant, wanting in special interest, and give in detail, and without 
occasion, specific views of prophecy.* We have already replied to 
the second objection by showing that the unhealthy excitement of 
some Christians at Thessalonica—who, under pretext of looking for 
the return of Jesus Christ, abandoned themselves to indolence— 
required from Paul some enlarged reference to prophecy. He must 
needs guard against one of the most serious abuses of his doctrme. 
We disallow utterly the objection founded on the want of interest 
and originality in these epistles—an objection which Baur urges in a 
general manner against all the minor epistles of the Apostle. A mere 
impression cannot be discussed. We appeal to the witness of the 
Christian conscience. The Epistle to the Ephesians is rejected by 
the same critic, because of its resemblance to the Epistle to the 
Colossians.f But M. Reuss has perfectly shown that their resem- 
blance is not as complete as is asserted. ‘‘ Geschichte H. Schr., 
N. T.,” p. 102. It is not surprising that the Apostle, writing to 
Churches placed in similar circumstances, should have addressed to 
them the same counsels. Baur urges, in objection to the genuineness 
of these letters, certain Gnostic tendencies, which he believes he dis- 
covers in the writer.t He thus characterizes the metaphysical 
expansion of the doctrine as to the person of Jesus Christ ; he makes 
much of the word πλήρωμα. Col. i, 20. But im its essence the doc- 
trine set forth in these letters is as far removed as possible from 
Gnostic dualism, and from the doctrme of emanation. Jesus Christ 
is not the first emanation of the Godhead; he possesses it ἴῃ its full- 
ness. Baur makes the same objection to the Epistle to the Colos- 
sians as to the pastoral epistles ;$ he asserts that the heresies pointed 
out by the author of these letters do not appear till the second 
century. Let us observe, first, that the learned critic finds in these 


* Baur, ‘ Paulus,” pp. 250-259. t Ibid, p. 48:. 
t Ibid., pp. 423, 424. § Ibid., p. 493. 


406. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


epistles that which is not there. He sees inthem a complete descrip- 
tion of Gnosticism, while the writer confines himself entirely to 
general features, such as belong to a nascent heresy. The discovery 
of the “‘ Philosophoumena” has thrown a flood of light on this much 
controverted point, and the picture which we have presented of the 
Churches founded by St. Paul is the best reply we can make to the 
attacks of the Tiibingen school. Too much attention cannot be be- 
stowed on that part of M. Reuss’s “" History of the New Testament” 
which takes up this delicate question. In our opinion, it is a master- 
piece of wise and learned criticism. (See ‘‘Gesch. der H. Schr., 
Nel? page £135) ᾿ 

The objections brought against the epistles of Paul are drawn, as 
we have seen, from internal evidence. No one denies that their 
authenticity was unanimously recognized in the third century. Placing 
ourselves on the ground occupied by our adversaries, it is impossible 
to us to discover in the disputed epistles a single point not in accord- 
ance with the character of the Apostle, and with the history of his 
life. What shall we say of the extravagance of a criticism which goes 
so far as to assert that Paul’s comparison of the Christian to a soldier, 
(2 Tim. il, 3,) being peculiarly in agreement with the taste of the 
writers of the second century, (by whom it is frequently used,) cannot 
belong to the first? One is surprised to see a man so sagacious as 
De Wette bringing the charge of pride against the sublime close 
of the Second Epistle to Timothy. De Wette’s ‘‘Commentary on 
2 Fim, tv, 3,2 


H. [See page 206.] 
ON THE EPISTLES OF JAMES AND OF JUDE. 


The epistles of James and of Jude have been placed by Eusebius 
(“‘ Hist. Eccles.,” iii, 25) among the ‘‘Antilegomena,” or disputed 
writings. But we see no sufficient reason for this assertion, and the 
external evidence is entirely in their favor. The doubts must have 
arisen later from doctrinal causes, probably in the case of James from 
the supposed opposition between his doctrine and that of Paul, and 
in that of Jude from his quotation from the apocryphal book of 
Enoch. The Church of Syria had admitted the epistle of the former 
into its canon. Clement of Rome seems to refer to it: ‘* Epistle to 
the Corinth.,”’ chap. x. Origen quotes it: ‘‘Commentar. in Joan- 
nem,” vol. xix, iv, 406. Clement of Alexandria quotes the Epistle 


NOTES. | 497 


of Jude. “Stromat.,” iii, 434; ‘‘ Pedagog,” ili, 239 ; Origen, “ Com- 
mentar. in Matth.,” iii, 463. (See, for the Epistle of Jude, the very 
complete ‘‘ Commentary ” of M. Arnaud.) 


I. [See page 213.] 
ON THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. 


We have spoken of only one Epistle of Peter, because it seems to 
us impossible to admit, with any certainty, the authenticity of the 
second. It is noteworthy that it is only mentioned for the first time 
by Clement of Alexandria, and even that quotation is not direct. 
Eusebius, “ Hist. Eccles.,” vi, 24. Origen, who cites it, (“‘ Comment. 
in Joannem,” iv, 135,) is the first and only one of the “Fathers” of 
the third century who clearly appeals to its authority. The Church 
of Syria, the testimony of which is of great value, did not acknowledge 
this epistle, and Eusebius (“5 Hist. Eccles.,” iii, 55) quotes it among 
the “‘ Antilegemena.”” The doubt was current as late as the fourth 
century, for Jerome says, “‘ Scripsit Petrus duas Epistolas, quae Cath- 
olice nominantur, quarum secunda a plerisque ejus esse negatur 
propter styli cum priore dissonantiam.” ‘‘ De Viris illustribus,” c. 1. 

On the other hand, the First Epistle of Peter has in its favor the 
highest possible testimony. Eusebius, ‘‘ Hist. Eccles.,” ili, 393 iv, 
14; Irenzus, “Contr. Heres,” iv, 9, 2; Clement of Alexandria, 
‘“Stromat.,-iit, 735 lertull.-“ €. Seorp.;”? 3,2. 

If we proceed to the examination of the internal evidences, they 
are very unfavorable to the authenticity of the Second Epistle of 
Peter. 1st. The style has scarcely any analogy to that of the first 
epistle. 2d. The dependent relation of this epistle to that of Jude is 
very marked; the author constantly takes up the text of Jude asa 
theme to be worked out. (See the parallelism of the two epistles in 
M. Arnaud’s ‘‘Commentary on Jude.”’) 3d. The writer insists upon 
his apostolic degree with a strange mannerism, resembling that of the 
apocryphal writings, (i, 13-18.) 4th. He quotes the collection of 
Paul’s epistles as forming part of the canon of the New Testament, 
which had no existence at this time, (2 Peter iii, 16;) in the year 64 
or 65, he speaks of these epistles as being among the number of ca- 
nonical Scriptures ; this is an extraordinary anachronism. 

There is nothing incredible in the pretension of the unknown 
author to pass for Peter. The whole apocryphal literature of the 
second and third centuries is full of fictitious scriptures, and the name 


33 


498 EARLY YEARS OF THE, CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


of Peter is that most commonly employed. May we not suppose , 
that an orthodox Christian, at the close of the second century, indig- 
nant at the supposed opposition between Peter and Paul, appealed to 
in the ‘*Clementines,’”? composed this epistle to set forth their deep 
harmony, making use, perhaps, of some fragments of the preaching 
of Peter which tradition may have preserved, for the commencement 
of the epistles? Calvin, in his embarrassed comments on this letter, 
betrays a doubt, which he is unable to dispel from his own mind or 
from the minds of his readers: ‘* Ceeterum,”’ he says, in his introduc- 
tion, ‘de auctore non constat, nunc Petri nunc apostoli nomini 
promiscue mihi permittam.” ‘* As there is no certainty about the 
author, I shall permit myself to say indifferently, Peter or the Apostle.” 
Let us observe that there is nothing in this epistle in contradiction to 
other canonical writings; it contains no special or new revelation. 
lt is better frankly to express a doubt as to its authenticity than to 
sanction the idea that Christian belief is bound absolutely to the 
traditional canon fixed by the Church of the fourth century. 


J. [See page 232.] 
ON THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 


It is not disputed by any, that, while the Western Church for 
nearly three centuries denies that Paul is the author of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, the doctors of the Church of Alexandria are almost 
unanimous in attributing the epistle to him. But the opinion of the 
West, and of Rome in particular, has great weight in the question, 
since that Church must be supposed to have had most authentic in- 
formation of all that related to the Apostle Paul, and especially of 
every thing connected with his captivity. Clement of Rome, makes 
constant allusions to the Epistle to the Hebrews. How would it be 
possible that he should never have named its author, if he had known 
who he was, and especially if he had known him to be the Apostle 
Paul? It is easy to understand how the Church of Alexandria 
should have arrived by a philosophical synthesis, natural to its genius, 
at the conclusion that Paul was the writer of an epistle which bears 
the impress of his thought. The internal evidences which vindicate 
the judgment of the Western Church are admirably set forth in 
Bleek’s “‘Commentary.” The following are the principal: Ist. The 
striking difference of style; the diversity of opinion on this point 
stems to us inexplicable. 2d. The relation of dependence, in which 


NOTES. 499 


the author places himself, upon the immediate witnesses of Jesus 
Christ. Heb. 11, 3. Now, Paul never took this position. One of 
the great objects of his polemics against his adversaries always was to 
establish that he was in the same rank with the first Apostles. 3d. If 
the ideas of the writer have much in common with those of Paul, 
they, nevertheless, bear, in the detail of their exposition, the impress 
of a different individuality. In favor of the hypothesis which ascribes 
the Epistle to the Hebrews to Paul, the two following passages are 
quoted: ist. Τινωσκετε τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν Τιμόθεον ἀπολελυμένον. 
Heb. xiii, 23. It is inferred, from the close relations of Paul and 
Timothy, that the former was the writer of these words. But it is 
impossible to base a whole argument on so trifling a point of detail. 
For Paul was not the only person who was in connection with Tim- 
othy. One of Paul’s other disciples might very naturally use such an 
expression. The sense given to the word ἀπολελυμένον is of very 
little weight, whether it signify that Z7mothy zs absent, or whether 
it contain the idea that e zs just set at liberty, this difference of in- 
terpretation in no way affects the solution of the question. 2d. The 
second passage adduced as an argument is Heb. xiii, 24. It is 
asserted that the expression, ‘‘ They of Italy salute you,” shows that 
the epistle was written at Rome; but do not these words, on the con- 
trary, seem to convey the idea that the writer is not in Italy, since he 
sees in the qualification, οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιταλίας, a special designation ? 

The hypothesis, which ascribes the Epistle to the Hebrews to. 
Apollos, is the most plausible. He was certainly a warm advocate 
of Paul’s principles ; he was well versed in the Scriptures ; he was at 
Alexandria, where great prominence was given to the typical and 
allegorical style. He was a man eloquent and learned. All these 
various characteristics are remarkably displayed in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. 


K. [See page 235.] 


DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS AS TO THE THEOLOGY OF THE APOSTOLIC 
AGE. 


We have presented the system of the Tiibingen school under its 
most moderate form, as it is set forth in the last book of Baur, ‘* Das 
Christenthum der drei ersten Jahrhunderte.” Titibingen, 1853, pp. 
43-151. 

The book of Schwegler, often quoted by us, ‘* Das Nachapostolische 
Zeitalter,” (Tiibingen, 1840,) is much more arbitrary in the use of in- 


500 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


ternal evidence. His fundamental idea is, that the Christian doctrine: 
of the third century was formed by successive transformations of 
Ebionitism.- Another disciple of Baur—Ritschl—in his book entitled, 
**Entstehung der altcatholischen Kirche,’”’ (Bonn, 1850,) starts from 
a hypothesis quite opposed to that of Schwegler. In his view, the 
dogmatic system of the third century was not formed by Ebionitism, 
but by Paulinism, the normal development of the doctrine of Jesus 
Christ. He supposes Judzeo-Christianity, on the other hand, to have 
been smitten with absolute dogmatic sterility, and those of its adher- 
ents, who did not fall in with Paulinism, to have formed the Ebionite 
sect—a party in the rear of advancement, and not the nucleus of the 
Church. A second edition of this learned work has just appeared, in 
which there is a very perceptible modification of the author’s views, 
more especially, however, with reference to the teaching of Christ, 
No one can place M. Reuss’s learned book, ‘‘ The History of Christian 
Theology in the Second Century,” (2d vol., Strasburg, 1852,) under 
the banner of the Tubingen school. The author, whose conscientious 
works we have already often mentioned, appears to us to have made 
too many concessions to the system, which supposes a complete ecclesi- 
astical and dogmatical polity in the first century. He has exaggerated 
the difference between Judeo-Christianity and Paulinism. The great 
complaint which we make of M. Reuss’s book is, that he misconceives 
the unique, exceptional, and creative character of the apostolic 
theology. We have endeavored to show how we can, with the 
Church of every age, admit this without falling into mechanical theop- 
neustics. The work of Schmid, ‘‘ Biblische Theologie des N. T.,” 
(Stuttgart, 1853,) has been a useful aid to us, as also Neander’s 
“Apostolic Age,” 2 vols. The portion of Schaff’s book, which 
refers to apostolic doctrine, (pp. 606-638,) is only an extract from 
Neander. 


L. [See page 428.] 
ON THE AUTHENTICITY AND THE DATE OF THE APOCALYPSE. 


Notwithstanding the able and learned dissertations of Liicke on 
the passages of ‘the Fathers” which support the authenticity of the 
Apocalypse, those passages appear to us conclusive. Either external 
evidence must be denied all value, or it must be admitted to be con- 
clusive in this case. Setting aside the passages of the writings of the 
apostolic ‘‘ Fathers,” which, in a general way, remind us of the Apoca- 


NOTES. SOI 


lypse, (for instance, the sixth chapter of Polycarp’s “ Epistle to the 
Ephesians,’”’ where mention is made of the prophets, who had declared 
the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ,) it is clear to us that Papias 
sought in it support for his millenarian views. Andreas, a writer of 
the fifth century, quoted, in explanation of Papias, Rey. xii, 7. 
Andreas, ‘‘ Pref. ad Comment. in ρος." Justin Martyr, who wrote 
about the year 139, cites it positively as the Revelation of John. 
Dial. cum Tryph.,” p. 179. According to Eusebius, (‘ Iist. 
Kccles.,” ii, 26,) Melito must have written a commentary on the 
Revelation. The allusions to this book are plain in the letter of the 
Church of Lyons to the Churches of Asia Minor. Eusebius, “ Hist. 
Eccles.,”’ v, 1. The testimony of Irenzeus, (‘‘ Contr. Heres.,” iv, 20 ;) 
of Clement of Alexandria, (‘“‘Stromat.,” vi, 66;) of Tertullian, 
(Adv. Mare.,” iii, 14;) and of Origen, (see Eusebius, ‘ Hist. 
Eccles.,”’ vi, 25,) is, without any sort of hesitation, in favor of the 
authenticity of the Apocalypse. 

The first doubts on this subject were expressed by the sect of the 
Alogi, who denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. These doubts were 
carried further by Caius, and finally by Dionysius of Alexandria, 
(Eusebius, vii, 25,) and more or less confirmed by Eusebius. But it 
is only needful to study the grounds taken up by Dionysius, in order 
to be convinced that he reasons entirely from οἱ frzoré arguments, and 
that it is fear of the chzZzasts, or millenarians, which leads him to 
throw doubt upon the book of the Revelation. 

Is the internal evidence in truth as adverse as is asserted? We 
think not. We admit that there are great differences in substance 
and in form between the Gospel of John and the Revelation, but 
there are also striking analogies. The differences seem to us to have 
been exaggerated by Liicke and Reuss,* as well as by the Tibingen 
school, which exults in the asserted Judaism of St. John, in order to 
dispute the authorship of the fourth gospel. Baur t goes so far as to 
see in it a sort of Judaistic libel on St. Paul. Hengstenberg falls into 
the opposite extreme.{ 

Stress is laid first on the difference of style and on the Hebraic col- 
oring of the Apocalypse. This difference is real; it is explained in 
part by the fact that the Book of the Revelation is, from its very 


* Liicke, “ Offenbarung Johannes,” pp. 707-744. Reuss, ‘‘ Theéol- 
ogie du Siécle Apostolique, vol. i, p. 303. 

Ἢ Baur, ‘‘ Das Christenthum der ‘drei erst. Jahrh.,” p. 75 ; Schwegler, 
work quoted, li, p. 247. 

t Hengstenberg, “ Offenbarung des Heiligen Johannes.” Berlin, 
1849. 


502 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


nature, much more dependent on Old Testament prophecy, the vivid 
images of which it constantly reproduces. This explanation, however, 
is not alone sufficient, and we are fully convinced that the Revelation 
cannot have been written at the same date as the Gospel and Epistles. 

Three points are especially insisted upon in proof of the difference 
between the Revelation and the other writings of John. 1st. The 
prophecy, properly so called, or the view of the future, is different. 
In the one case, it is said, every thing is materialized—resurrection, 
judgment, triumph, condemnation, Antichrist ; to the author of the 
Apocalypse, all this is earthly and external, while to the Evangelist 
every thing is spiritual. Resurrection in the fourth gospel stands for 
conversion ; judgment is the separation of light and darkness. Oppo- 
sition to Christ is not personified in the form of a man. It is a con- 
dition of mind.* Liicke himself does not admit this strongly-marked 
opposition. He allows that there is, in the Gospel, an element cor- 
responding to apocalyptic prophecy. He thinks, firstly, that even 
the Evangelist refers to a resurrection, a judgment in the true sense, 
which is to be the actual close of the religious history of mankind. 
John v, 213; vi, 39; xi, 24. Only in the Gospel and in the Epistles 
this closing scene is not directly external, as, in the Apocalypse, it is 
in its first significance: spiritual ; the moral precedes the final judg- 
ment. We have here, then, a progression in revelation, but we deny 
that there is any contradiction. 2d. It is asserted that the Gospel 
is anti-Judaic, while the Apocalypse is said to be of a profoundly 
Judaizing tendency. 

The opposition of the Gospel of John to Judaism must not be exag- 
gerated. Do we not read in it these words, ‘Salvation is of the 
Jews?” John iv, 22. Has it not been often remarked with what 
scrupulous care the fourth Evangelist endeavors to show the harmony 
of Old Testament prophecy with the facts to which it refers? In 
this respect John almost rivals Matthew. It has been far too much 
forgotten, in speaking of the Judaism of the Revelation, that the sym- 
bolism of a prophet of the first century must necessarily be borrowed 
from the Old Testament. The colors which he must use were, so to 
speak, already prepared for him. Besides, the author of the Apoca- 
lypse recognizes very distinctly Christian universalism, and was not 
that the essential point? The twelve tribes of which he speaks 
(vii, 5-9) cannot represent exclusively the chosen people, since the 
great multitude around the throne of the Lamb belongs to every tribe, 


* This opinion is maintained by M. Réville, ‘ Revue de Théologie,” 
Στ ΡΡ 901: ΤΟ. 
t Liicke, ‘‘ Offenbarung,” p. 178. 


NOTES. 503 


and nation, and kindred, and tongue. Paul had already designated 
the Church “the Israel of God.” Gal. vi, 16.* 

3d. It is maintained that the doctrine of the author of the Revela- 
tion is totally at variance with that of the author of the Gospel. And 
first, Jesus, it is said, is not represented as the Word of God, but 
only as the great revealer; but what, then, is conveyed by those 
hymns to the Lamb, which blend his name in common adoration with 
that of God? πεν ἐν, 133 Σιν, 3, 4- 

Even those who pretend to discover in the Apocalypse the notion 
of salvation by works, as opposed to the true Christian doctrine, are 
constrained to admit that there are few books of the New Testament 
in which redemption by the blood of Christ is more clearly taught. 
Rev. i, 5; vii, 14. How is it possible to reconcile such declarations 
with the idea of asimple recompense for good works? The Judaizing 
character of the Apocalypse is especially pointed out in that part of 
_ the book in which the martyrs are represented as crying to God to be 
avenged for their blood shed upon the earth. Rev. vi, 10; xili, 10; 
xiv, 10, 11. How, it is asked, can this idea of vengeance be harmo- 
nized with the conception of love so beautifully set forth in the Gospel 
and Epistles? Let it not be forgotten that love implies holiness, and 
that the law of the universe, to which a sanction is attached, cannot 
be violated with impunity. Condemnation is spoken of in almost 
every page of the gospel, and we cannot forget the mysterious words 
of the first epistle as.to the unpardonable sin. 1 John v, 16, 17. 
We admit that this element of justice is set forth in the Apocalypse 
- under the form of ancient prophecy ; but it embodies, nevertheless, 
an immortal verity, though without giving it its highest and most 
_complete expression. This is one of the reasons which convince us 
that the Revelation cannot have been written at the same period as 
the Gospel. With reference to the immediate expectation of the 
return of the Lord, (i, 3; xii, 12; xxii, 10,) this does not at all go 
beyond that which was common in the writings of St. Paul, and among 
all the Christians of the first century. There is, then, no contradiction 
between John the Evangelist and the writer of the Apocalypse, and 
we do not find ourselves in the dilemma stated by M. Reuss, that if 
St. John wrote the one, he cannot have written the other. “‘ Gesch. 
Schr., N. T.,” p. 147. On the contrary, there are striking analogies 
between the two books; in both we note the tender and pathetic, 
often melancholy tone, which renders the writings of John so touching ; 
the same love for the person of Jesus Christ, the same hatred of 


= Liicke, ‘‘ Offenbarung,”’ p. 739. 


504. EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


heresy. Can we not recognize the son of thunder, the impassioned 
opponent of Cerinthus, in every page of the book of Revelation ? 
Though we concur in the belief of the authenticity of the Apoca- 
lypse, we are not, however, prepared to admit the traditional date for 
its composition. We have already poimted out several reasons which, 
from a doctrinal pomt of view, make us demur to this. We shall 
not recur to these. It is not, as we have shown, that we charge the 
writer of the Revelation with a rude Judaism, as has been done by 
others.* No, we discern in it a dive revelation full of wealth and 
beauty. Let us not forget, however, that the revelations of God have 
been progressive, even in the new covenant. It is clear, for example, 
that as regards doctrinal fullness, there is a wide disparity between 
the Epistle of James and that of Paul to the Ephesians. God always 
takes account of human receptivity. There is, then, no reason for 
surprise if the revelations granted to the same man, at two different 
periods of his life, manifest a progression of light, while they, never- 
theless, rest on the same basis of truth. We admit, however, with- 
out hesitation, that if the testimony of history compelled us te place 
the Apocalypse in the reign of Domitian, we should at once accept 
the traditional date, setting aside our own judgment. But there is 
no such necessity ; the sole testimony of the second century in favor 
of this hypothesis 15 that of Irenzeus. ‘‘ The Apocalyptic vision,” he 
says, ‘*took place not long before our day, but a short time before 
our generation, under Domitian.”+ Clement of Alexandria speaks 
only of some tyrant, under whom fohn was exiled to Patmos.} Ori- 
gen calls him the King of the Romans.§ Eusebius and St. Jerome 
echo the statement of Ivenzeus.|} Epiphanius ts the first who differs 
from Irenzeus as to the name of the tyrant or king who persecuted St. 
John. According to him it was Claudius who banished the Apostle 
to Patmos. Tertullian places the exile of John under the reign of 
Nero, who, he says, after having him plunged im a bath of boiling 


* This is the opmion of M. Réville, who, placing the composition 
of the Apocalypse before the destruction of Jerusalem, lays the 
strangest illusions of Judzeo-Christianity to the charge of St. John. | 

t Οὐδὲ yap πρὸ πολλοῦ χρονοῦ ἐώραθη, πρὸς τῶ τέλες τῆς Δομετέεανοῦ 
ἀρχῆς. Irenzeus, “ Contr. Heeres.,” v, 30. 

1 ᾿Επειδὴ yap τοῦ τυράννου τελευτήσαντος. Clement of κει εν ͵ 
ΘΠ dives,” § 42. 

§ Origen, “Opera,” IIT, p. 710. 

| Eusebius, ‘* Hist. Eccles.,” iii, 18, 20, 23. St. Jerome, “ De 
viris illustr.,” IX. 

{ Μετὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου ἐπάνοδον τὴν emi Κλαυδίον γενομ- 
ἕνην Καισαρος. Epiphanius, “ Ad, Heeres.,”’ li, 12. 


NOTES. 505 


oil, banished him to Patmos.* The last two writers are evidently 
misinformed, but they prove to us that the tradition as to the date 
of John’s exile was not generally accepted by the Church in their 
time. Nor was it so several centuries later; for Andreas, in his 
commentary on Rev. vi, 12, observes that some interpreters saw in 
this passage a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. Hengsten- 
berg, in order to prove that the Revelation was written under Domi- 
tian, dwells upon the internal condition of the seven Churches. He 
thinks it impossible to suppose such a growth of heresies before the 
close of the apostolic age. i, 12. But what, then, does he make of the 
pastoral epistles, and how does he not see that he is thus furnishing 
negative criticism with weapons to attack them? 

From the study of the question we draw the conclusion that it is 
not possible to determine with exactness, by means of external evi- 
dence, the date of the composition of the Apocalypse. We are, 
therefore, compelled to give full weight to the internal evidence. 
We have already observed that the doctrinal character of the book is 
adverse to its traditional date. If, now, we sum up its historical 
statements, we shall find that they give some indications as to the 
time of its composition. Lticke and Reuss see one such indication in 
the eleventh chapter, where the sacred writer is bidden to measure 
the temple.t In their view, this passage should be taken literally, and 
would imply that Jerusalem could not then have been destroyed ; 
whence it would follow that the book must have been written before 
the year 70. But it seems to us impossible to be satisfied with a lit- 
eral interpretation. We think, with Thiersch,f that it is not possible to 
suppose John giving such flagrant contradiction to the prophecies of the 
Saviour, which declared the destruction of Jerusalem and of the tem- 
ple. Matt. xxiv, 1,2. Then has not Lticke himself admitted that, 
with John, the Church is the Israel of God? Does not the temple, 
then, represent the Church itself in its outward constitution? That 
the temple has this symbolic value appears from Rev. i, 13, where 
the seven candlesticks of the sanctuary at Jerusalem represent the 
seven Churches to which Jesus Christ addresses himself. The date of 
the Apocalypse is not to be sought in the eleventh chapter of the 
book, but rather in its general coloring. 

It is to us evident that the Apostle wrote a few years after the ter- 
rible persecution under Nero. It is idle to draw any parallel between 
the persecutions under Domitian, and that first truly infernal explo- 


* Tn insulam relegatus.” Tertullian, ‘‘ De Preescript.,” xxxvi. 
7 Liicke, ‘‘ Offenbar.,” p. 827. 
1 Thiersch, book quoted, p. 237. 


506 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


sion of pagan hatred against the Church. Let it be observed, further, 
that the sacred writer speaks only of Roman persecutions; he has 
ever in view the city of the seven hills. Now, was it not under Nero 
that in the first century Babylon the impure became drunk with the 
blood of the saints? The thirteenth and seventeenth chapters of the 
Apocalypse carry us into the midst of the Roman world. The beast 
in those two chapters represents the Roman power, for it is ridden by 
the ‘‘ woman arrayed in purple and scarlet,’’ who is the great harlot 
of the ancient world; and the seven heads of the beast correspond 
evidently to the seven hills of Rome. It is, then, in our opinion, a 
grave mistake to see in these seven heads a succession of monarchies, 
as in the book of Daniel. They might rather represent the succession 
of various forms of Roman government, but even this would be a 
forced interpretation. The seven heads, after representing the seven 
hills, represent seven kings, seven Roman kings, that is, seven empe- 
rors. One of these heads has a peculiar power, this is the Anti- 
christian power, far excellence, antichrist in person. Now, this 
head, which has been mortally wounded, can be nothing else than an 
emperor who has fallen by a violent death. It is the fifth emperor, 
Nero. He was and is not. ““ Wounded to death,” this head is yet 
to be healed and to reappear with greater power than before. xiii, 3. 
This feature recalls the opinion so prevalent in the Roman empire 
and in the Church, that Nero w4s not dead, but was to appear again. 
The ancient Church long regarded him as Antichrist.* This is a 
very important fact for the interpretation of the Revelation. Does it 
signify that the sacred writer thus sanctioned an absurd legend so 
soon to be falsified by fact ἢ Assuredly not ; but, as Thierscht has 
observed, he has made use of the element of truth lurking in the 


—— 


* «Nero primus omnium persecutus Dei servos, dejectus itaque 
fastigio imperii nusquam repente compariuit ; ut ne sepulturze quidem 
locoes in terra tam malu bestiz appareret. Unde illum quidam deliri 
credunt esse translatum ac vivum reservatum, sibylla dicente matrici- 
dum profugum a finibus esse venturum ut qui primus persecutus est 
idem etiam persequatur et Antichristi preecedat adventum.” Lactan- 
tius, ‘* De Morte persecut.,” chap. ii; Augustin, ‘‘ Civ. Dei,” xx, 19; 
Jerome, “ In Daniel,” xi, 28. See also the fourth book of the ““ Sib- 
ylline Oracles,” ν, 106, and the vision of Isaiah in Ethiopia. Vic- 
torinus, (2d century,) and Commodianus, (3d century,) think that 
Nero will be himself Antichrist. The idea of the return of Nero is 
further expressed in pagan writers. Suetonius, ‘‘ Nero,” 40, 573 
Tacitus, ‘‘ Historia,” i, 2; Dio Cassius, lxiv, 9. See Reuss’s ‘* The- 
ology of the Apostolic Age,” i, 324. Liicke, “‘ Offenbar.,”’ p. 834. 


1. 


T “In der Volksage selbst liegt eine Wahrheit.” Thiersch, work 
quoted, p. 243. 


NOTES. 507 


legend, which was inspired by a sort of prophetic instinct. Opposi- 
tion to Christianity in one period is the type of that in another. 
That which the Church saw in Nero it will see again; Nero, or ra- 
ther the spirit ef Nero, (brutal hatred of the Gospel,) will reappear. 

The combat is not finished, it has only commenced, and the first 
century is a faint image of the true Antichrist. What is there here 
unworthy of the Revelation? Is not the symbol admirably chosen ? 
Do we not know that prophecy has always a primary signification, 
which, however, is capable of progressive and indefinite expansion ? 
It is certain that the idea that Nero was Antichrist was widely diffused 
throughout the ancient Church; the expectation of his return took a 
materialized form, but its origin may be traced to this passage in the 
Apocalypse. It is not more surprising to find John bringing out the 
true meaning of a legend, than to find Jude quoting the Apocrypha, 
or Job speaking of the crooked serpent. xxvi, 13. That which is of 
importance here is to avoid a literalism which would make John the 
mere echo of a popular superstition. Of little consequence are the 
symbols employed by the prophet, provided only his prophecy be 
true. Did not the last prophets of the New Testament use without 
hesitation the symbolism of Chaldza? and did they not convey 
through this medium divine ideas? We have now before our eyes, in 
Paris and in London, those huge animals of monstrous forms which 
were the objects of absurd superstition at Babylon and the sublime 
types of Jewish prophecy. 

We have not yet spoken of the ingenious hypothesis of M. Reuss 
on the number of the beast, (666,) in which he says: 

** We think with Liicke* and De Wettef that it is more natural to 
look for a Greek than a Hebrew name in a book written in Greek. 
The ancient hypothesis of Irenzeus, who read in it La¢znzus, is very 
satisfactory ; it is sustained also by the relation of the numbers to the 
letters. Nero is not considered solely as an individual, but as the 
personification of the Roman power. The spirit of Nero, which is 
the true genius of paganism and of the Roman empire, the eighth 
king who comes of the seven, the Latznxus par excellence, is to rean- 
pear among them, more terrible still. This prophecy received its first 
realization in the persecutions excited by the succeeding emperors ; 
it is to be yet more fearfully fulfilled in the end of time. John is not 
in error.” 

Several commentaries on the Apocalypse have recently appeared in 


=vEnckey “ Offenb:,” pe833: 
t De Wette, “ Commentar. in aS 


ποῦ EARLY YEARS OF -THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 


Germany. The most important is that of Auberlin, ‘‘ Der Prophet 
Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhalt- 
niss betrachtet,’? von Carl Ang. Auberlin. Second ed., Basel, 1857. 
The writer follows the preeterist system, which pretends to find all 
modern history narrated in anticipation in the Apocalypse. He dis- 
plays much learning, piety, and subtilty in the exposition of his 
theory. The woman of the twelfth chapter is in his system the 
Church, surrounded with the divine light under the figure of the sun, 
and having under her feet the light of this world, set forth by the 
moon, which receives light without possessing it. This Church, under 
her ancient form in Judaism, has given birth to the Christ, who has 
driven the demons out of heaven, these having hitherto occupied one 
of its regions. She extends her power in the pagan world, which is 
represented by the desert. Rev. xii, 6. The devil raises a fearful 
persecution, (xii, 13 5) vanquished the first time, he casts forth upon 
her the floods of the barbarian invasion, like a great inundating 
stream. xii, 15. But the earth opens her mouth and swallows this 
flood; the barbarous peoples are brought into the Roman empire and 
are Christianized by the Church. 

The beast of the thirteenth chapter is the temporal power. If the 
Apocalypse gives it seven heads, it is to represent its attempt to imi- 
tate the divine power, of which seven is the symbolic number. But 
it fails in this attempt, for in chap. xiii, 11, an eighth head is added ; 
this is enough to denote its incapacity to reproduce the divine power. 
The number 666 pronounces its condemnation. In fact, the number 
six always symbolizes the judgment of God, for in the scene of the 
seven cups, the seven trumpets, and the seven thunders, the sixth 
link introduces the most terrible visitations of Heaven, which assure 
the triumph of truth. Further, the number six is the half of the 
number twelve, the symbolic number of the Church, and it indicates 
the divided condition of the temporal power. The number 666, by 
multiplying the number six, prophesies a terrible access to the con- 
demnation of the world. The author sees in the seven hills and the 
seven heads the succession of monarchies. The fallen Church is set 
forth in the harlot of the thirteenth chapter. The beast, the image 
of modern powers, seemed vanquished when it was wounded. xiii, 3. 
This indicated a check to the evil power, and the Christianization of 
the world. But its healing shows that the modern, like the ancient 
world, has fallen again under the power of the devil. One last vic- 
tory will be permitted to this diabolic power, (xiii, 7.) and the 
drama of history shall close with the millennium taken in the real 
sense. 


NOTES. 509 


Such a system seems to us to refute itself; the symbolism of num- 
bers on which it hinges, carries the arbitrary beyond all limit. Pro- 
ceeding thus, we may see any thing or any body in the Revelation. 

Ebrard, in the commentary which he published last year, upholds 
the old Protestant view. The Roman power is depicted in the thir- 
teenth and fourteenth chapters, and Papal Rome in the seventeenth 
chapter. The system of MM. Elliot and\Gaussen is found complete 
in Griibe’s commentary on the Apocalypse. ‘‘ Versuch einer histo- 
rischen Erklarung der Offenbarung Johannis.” Heidelberg, 1857. 


M. [See page 429.] 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL AND EPISTLES OF JOHN. 


We cannot here go over the whole discussion that has arisen as to 
the author of the fourth gospel. Its authenticity was impugned with 
some reserve by Bretschneider in his ‘f Probabilia.””. That theologian 
maintained that between the gospel of John and the synoptics the 
difference was absolute, especially in reference to the discourses of the 
Saviour. _ Strauss, in his ‘* Life of Christ,”’ proceeded to set forth three 
differences in support of his hypothesis of an evangelical mythology. 
Baur and his school have taken other ground in attacking the authen- 
ticity of the fourth gospel. It is, in their view, the last result of the 
struggle between Paulinism and Ebionitism, and, as it were, a treaty 
of peace between the two systems, signed upon the heights of Alex- 
andrine Gnosticism. Baur, ‘‘ Das Christ., der drei erst. Jahrh., 133. 
Such a reconciliation could only take place at an advanced date, 
when the combatants had become exhausted, that is to say, about the 
end of the second century. The most remarkable work in favor of 
its authenticity is Liicke’s introduction to his commentary on the 
Gospel. All that M. Reuss has written on this subject, whether in 
his book, ‘‘ The History of the New Testament,” or in his ‘* History 
of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age,” or in a separate disser- 
tation, has great value. For ourselves, no point of sacred criticism 
seems to us better established than the authenticity of the fourth 
gospel. Licke, in his commentary, had already shown how much 
favor is in its eternal testimony. Pp. 41-81. It appears to us evident 
that Justin Martyr makes numerous allusions to passages of the fourth 
gospel. “ Dial. cnm Tryph.,” 88, 114, 108. His treatment of the 
doctrine of the ‘* Word” reminds us of the prologue of John’s gospel. 
He even goes so far as to call Jesus Christ μονογενῆς, the only Son. 


510 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Id. τος. Comp. ‘ Apol.,” i, 33. There is an equally evident allusion 
in the ““ Apology of Athenagoras,” written about the year 177. It is 
only necessary to read the tenth chapter to be convinced of this. The 
allusions are also numerous in the letter of the Church of Lyons to the 
Churches of Asia Minor. Eusebius, ‘‘ Hist. Eccles.,”? v, τ. The re- 
jection of the Gospel of John by the 4/og7 was exclusively founded 
on doctrinal grounds. Origen tells us that Celsus, who wrote about 
the middle of the second century, sought, in the fourth gospel, for 
weapons to use against the Christians. “ Contr. Celsum,”’ v, 52 ; 1, 67: 
allusion to John ii, 18. 

The first direct testimony is that of Theophilus of Antioch, who 
lived in the year 168. We read in his book to Antolicus, i1, 22: Ὅθεν 
διδάσκουσιν Huag ἅγιαι γραφαὶ καὶ πάντες GL πνευματοφόροι, ἐξ ὧν 
᾿Ιωάννης λέγεί "Ev ἀρχῃ nv ὁ λόγος. The testimony of lrenzeus is not 
less? precise: τὸ Gontr. “Heres,” 11, 1.’ Comp. Tertullian, “Adv: 
Marconem,” iv, 2, 5. The mention of the Apocalypse in the canon 
of Muratori proves to us that the Gospel was received into the canon 
of the Church of Rome at the commencement of the third century. 
From that time, all the ‘‘ Fathers,” without exception, confirm the 
apostolic origin of the fourth gospel. Origen, about the year 222, 
comments on it. The Peshito version translates it, and Eusebius 
(‘‘ Hist. Eccles.,”’ iii, 24, 25) places it, without hesitation, among the 
““ Homologoumena.”’ 

The external evidence derived from the testimony of the orthodox 
Church is, then, very strongly in favor of the authenticity of the 
fourth gospel. It will appear decisive and irrefragable, if we take 
also into account the testimony of heresy itself. The discovery of the 
‘*Philosophoumena” has decided the question. St. Hippolytus 
makes us acquainted with the first ‘* Ophites,” who are the immediate 
successors of the heretics of the apostolic age, and who lived in the 
first quarter of the second .century. All know the doctrine of the 
«ς Word; it occupies a prominent place in the rough outlines of their 
systems; all quote positively the fourth gospel. Thus Hippolytus at- 
tributes to the ‘‘ Naassenians,”’ the most ancient of the Ophites, dec- 
larations like this: To γεγεννημένον ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς, caps ἐστι, Kal TO 
γεγεννημένον ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος, πνεῦμά ἐστι». ““ Philosoph.,” p. 106 ; quo- 
tation from John ii, 16. The Ophites Perates made the same use 
of the Gospel of John: Τῦντό ἐστι, φησὶ, τὸ εἰρημένον. A quotation 
of John iii, 17, follows. ‘* Philosoph.,” p. 125. Basilidés, the famous 
heretic, who wrote between the years 120 and 130, quotes St. John 
positively in the fragment reproduced by Hippolytus: Τοῦτο, φησὶν, 
ἔστι TO λεγόμενον ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις "Hv τὸ φὼς το ἀληθινόν. ‘ Philo- 


NOTES. 511 


soph., p. 232. (See Bunsen on this point ; ““ Hippolytus,” i, 33, 36.) 
We cannot comprehend how the significance of such passages can be 
questioned, and how the hypothesis of the Tibingen school can stand 
against them.* 

Let us proceed to the internal evidence. It appears to us, first, 
that there is a striking analogy between what we know of St. John 
and the character of the fourth gospel. One feels that the writer is 
a Jew by birth, for the allusions to the customs of his nation are 
many; but he is also acquainted with Greece and its lofty culture. 
An allusion to the heresies of Docetism is evident from the commence- 
ment, and is in harmony with what is known of the adversary of 
Cerinthus. The fourth gospel bears the mark of a date subsequent 
to the first three, and this again brings us to the time of Jokn’s 
abode at Ephesus. Τί is pre-eminent for accuracy, and shows through- 
out an eye-witness in the historian. Lastly, how can we avoid recog- 
nizing in every page the disciple whom Jesus loved, the apostle of 
love, who, as Clement of Alexandria says, ‘discerned like by like, 
love by love.”? Objection is taken to the marked difference between 
the discourses of the Saviour in the synoptics, and in the fourth gos- 
pel. It has even been said that John gives us another Christ than 
the first three evangelists. We admit that he presents him under 
another aspect, precisely because of his own moral affinity for that 
which was transcendent in the Master ; but the Christ is essentially 
the same Christ. We have already observed that the writers of the 
synoptics also discerned the Son of God in the Son of man. It is 
not just to assert that the element of parable is completely absent 
from the gospel of John while we can point to the tenth and fifteenth 
chapters. The uniformity of the discourses is undeniable, and belongs 
to the more metaphysical character of the gospel of John. Evidently 
language has less variety when it touches on the highest points of 
religious teaching. Weadmit that John has given acertain sameness 
of color to the words of the Saviour, the same color which we find in 
his epistle ; but the point to be ascertained is, whether John himself 


* If it were admitted with Liicke, (“‘Comment.,” ii, p. 826,) and 
with Reuss, (“ Geschichte Schr., N. Τ᾽, p. 227,) that the twenty- 
first chapter of the fourth gospel is not by John, though it is of 
very ancient date, since it is quoted by Origen and Clement of Alex- 
andria, the gospel of John would bear with it, in its closing verses, 
the certificate of its origin. The question appears to us insoluble if 
we take the whole of the chapters ; but we think, with Olshausen, that 
the hyperbola of the last two verses is a gloss.. The very antiquity of 
this gloss makes it a most important witness in favor of the authen- 
ticity of the fourth gospel. 


512 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


is molded by Jesus Christ, or whether the teaching of Jesus Christ is 
subsequently thrown into a certain form by John. Between the two 
alternatives we do not hesitate one moment. By admitting the first, 
the subjective share of the historian is considerably lessened. As re- 
gards the differences in the narration of facts between the first three 
gospels and the fourth, these differences, though real in one respect, 
do not rise to the height of an absolute incompatibility in narrative, 
taken as a whole. The synoptics, while they especially relate that 
which transpired in Galilee, nevertheless contain evident allusions to 
journeys of the Saviour to Jerusalem. Luke x, 38-42; Matt. xxili, 37. 

When the Tubingen school sets against our statement the asserted 
Judaism of the author of the Apocalypse, we are prepared to reduce 
this objection to its true value. (See the preceding note.) Nor can 
any argument against the authenticity of the fourth gospel be drawn 
from the fact that St. John, who, in his gospel, places the last sup- 
per of Christ with his disciples on the 13th of Nisan, kept the Pass- 
over on the 14th, for he might think that the death of the true Lamb 
of God at that date was of more weight in fixing the paschal feast than 
the celebration of the same feast on the 13th of Nisan in the upper 
chamber. 

As to the epistles of John, the first is evidently written by the 
author of the fourth gospel. Never was internal evidence more con- 
clusive. Let us add that it has the most ancient testimony in its 
favor: ‘* Papias in Eusebius,” ili, 39; Polycarp, ὁ Ad. Philipp.,” 7 ; 
Comp. Irenzeus, ‘‘ Contr. Heres.,”’ ili, 16; Clement of Alexandria, 
*‘oiromat.,.. 1, 3895 <lertullian, “Ady. Praxeam,” π᾿ teas 
always been classed among the ““ Homologoumena.” ‘There is no 
reason of any weight for disputing the authenticity of the two 
smaller epistles of John. They strikingly resemble his style and 
manner. ‘They also have external evidence on their side, though 
some doubt was entertained by Origen. Eusebius, vi, 25; vil, 28. 
Dionysius of Alexandria recognized their authenticity ; (Iuselius, 
vi, 253) so also did Irenzeus, (‘‘ Contr. Heres.,” 1, 163,) who speaks 
positively of the second as being by John. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


Acts of Apostles, the Apochryphal, accounts of sufferings and deaths 
of Apostles in, 209. 

Admission into primitive Church, 49, 51, 336. 

Alexander of Ephesus, 179. 

Allegorical interpretation of Scripture, the, by early heretics, 325. 

Altar, the, ‘‘ to the unknown God,” at Athens, 160. 

Ananias, of Damascus, 110 72. 

Ananias, the High Priest, rgo. 

Ananias and Sapphira, 51. 

Andrew, brother of Peter, his sphere of work, 207. 

Angels of the seven Churches, the, 476. 

Anointing with oil, in early Church, 380. 

Antioch, foundation of Church in, 76. 

Apocalypse, the, its fundamental idea, 430; its agreement with 
other writings of John, 4303 its representations of Christ, of re- 
demption, and of the Church, 430; its prophetic character, and its 
symbolism, 432; when written, and influence of circumstances of 
the time on its style and matter, 432 ; itsrhythm and plan, 4343; com- 
pared with Christ’s prophecy of the last times, 435; the Babylon 
of, 435; the Antichrist of, 436; typical value of events foretold 
in, 438 ; the final triumph of Christianity over Antichrist, as depicted 
in, 439; the millennium and the judgment, 440; its teaching on 
the interpretation of history, 440; classification of commentators 
upon, 441 #.; authenticity and date of, Note L, 500. 

Apollos, sketch of, 168. 

Apostolate of St. Paul, 113, 127, 129. 

Apostolic doctrine, the, 240, Note K, 499. 

Apostolic office, the, its nature, 49, 113, 132. 

Apostolical Succession, the true, 50. 

Apostles, the, their influence and place in primitive Church, 49, 356. 

Aquila and Priscilla, 163, 167, 168, 389. 

Arabia, Paul’s residence in, 110; Matthew’s labors in, 208 ; Barthol- 
omew and Nathanael in, 208. 

Asceticism, the, of St. Paul, 145, 390; of the primitive Church, 388 ; 
of heretics in Ephesian and Colossian Churches, 327. 


Athens, sketch of the religious condition of, 158. 
30 


5i4 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 


Babylon, the scene of Peter’s labors, 210; The Jewish population 
in, 211; not to be understood in a mystic sense, 211; the Baby- 
lon of the Apocalypse, 435. 

3aptism in the primitive Church, 374. 

Barnabas, sent to Antioch, 78; seeks Paul, 112; his difference with 
Paul, 116, 143; at the Council of Jerusalem, 133. 

Bartholomew and Nathaniel in Arabia, 208. 

Berea, 157. 

Bishop, the word, in Epistles, 347; St. Jerome’s account of, 3483 
pagan usage of, 348. 

Burrhus, the prefect, of Rome, 198. 


Caiaphas, a leader of the Sadducean party in Jerusalem, 33. 

Calumnies brought against early Christians, 225. 

Cerinthus, his doctrine, 473. 

Christians, the name, 79. 

Christian Church, its basis, 24 ; its double vocation, 25. See Prim- 
itive Church. 

Christian doctrine in primitive Church; in first period of apostolic 
age, not systematic, 48; in second period of apostolic age, 2335 
were there two contradictory systems of, 233; Baur’s theory of, 234; 
divergencies of sacred writers concerning, not radical nor irrecon- 
cilable, 237; unity of, in diversity, 239; the three types of, in the 
second period of the apostolic age, 240; as taught by James, 241 ; 
as taught by Paul, 254. 

Christian life, the, in the primitive Church, 381 ; in relation to poli- 
tics and art, 382 ; in relation to question of Church and State, 384 ; 
as an imitation of Christ, 386; its active labor, 386; its ascet- 
icism, 387; in relation to the family, 388 ; in relation to slavery, 391 ; 
its charity, 393; its relations with the world, 395; blemishes and 
beauty of, 395. 

Christianity, its relations with Judaism, 94, 137, 409; how regarded 
by paganism, 223; Jews and pagans prepared for, 270. 

Chronology of the Acts, the, Note B, 484. 

Church-members, admission of, into primitive Church, 49, 336. 

Circumcision declared not obligatory on Gentile converts by Paul, 125. 

Citizenship, the rights of, claimed by Paul, 155. 

Colosse, Church at, founded by Epaphras, 148 ; heresy in, 327. 

Community of goods in early Church, 53. 

Conversion of Paul, discrepancies in narrative of, considered, 107 2. 

Corinth, 162; epistle to Church at, 176; second epistle to Church 
at, 180; the four parties in Church at, 311. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 515 


Cornelius, 79. 

Corruption of mankind, as taught by Paul, 257. 

Council of Jerusalem, the, questions before, 125; its public and private 
conferences, 126; its decision as to Paul’s apostleship, 130; its de- 
cision as to admission of Gentiles into the Church, 131 ; essentially 
democratic, 131; its breadth of spirit, 133; its decrees, how re- 
garded by the ancient Church, 138; its non-solution of the great 
problems of the primitive Church, 139, Note E, 490. 

Crete, date of Paul’s visit to, 175 2. ; heresy of Church at, 317. 


Damascus, Christianity in, 76; Paul’s journey to, 108. 

Deacons in primitive Church, 55, 354. 

Deaconesses, 355. 

Demetrius, 177. 

Demiurge, the, 473. 

Demoniacal possession, its prevalence at momentous epochs, 152. 

Democratic constitution of primitive Church, 476. See Hierarchical 
Theory. 

Diana, temple of, at Ephesus, 170; the silver shrines of, 177. 

Discipline in primitive Church, 344. 

Diversity of opinion as to theology of the apostolic age, Note K, 499. 

Docetism, 471. 

Domitian, and the grandchildren of Jude, 465; his persecutions and 
blasphemous pretensions, 466. 

Dositheus, a false Messiah, 67. 

Dualism of Paul, 287; in Crete, Colosse, and Ephesus, 317; its 
effects; 921: τ 


Ebionitism, its germ in the apostolic age, 298 ; its obscure commence- 
ment, 414. 

Ecclesiastical organization of primitive Church, 331; its unity, 334 3 
in relation to the constitution of Churches, 336; absence of sacer- 
dotal order in, 345 ; its relation to that of the Jewish synagogue, 
346; its simple mechanism, 346; its development, 354; how 
far a pattern for later ages, 360; causes which strengthened 
it, 475- 

Elders of primitive Church, their functions, 83, 351; their appoint- 
ment to office, 356. 

Election, Paul on, 264; John on, 459. 

Eleusinian mysteries, the, 158. 

Elymas, 117. 

Epaphras, or Epaphroditus, 147. 


516 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Ephesus, 169; the temple of Diana at, 170; Exorcists at, 172; Paul’s 
fighting with beasts at, 178; epistle to the Church at, 193; John’s 
residence at, 423. 

Episcopate, imaginary recognition of, in Church at Jerusalem, go, 
41ο 2. See Hierarchical Theory. 

Eternal Sonship of Christ, as taught by Paul, 271; doctrine not con- 
tradicted by use of word πρωτότοκος, 271 71. 

Ethiopian Eunuch, the, 74. 

Eutychus, 182. 


Faith, its relation to works, according to James, 243; Paul’s teaching 
on justification by, 279. 

Felix, the Procurator, IgI. 

Festus, 194. 

Free grace, Paul’s doctrine of, 262. 

Funerals in primitive Church, 381. 


Galatians, their origin and character, 148; epistle to, 169; Judaizing 
teachers among the, 267. . 

Gallio, 165. 

Gamaliel, 33; his intervention in the Sanhedrim, 4o. 

Gamaliel, Paul’s teacher, go. 

Gentiles, Christian, how regarded by primitive Church, 125, 137; 
problem concerning, not solved by Council of Jerusalem, 139; grad- 
ually reconciled to Christians of Jewish origin, 237. 

Gifts, the, of primitive Church, 338. 

Gnosticism, in primitive Church, 326. 

Gospel according to Mark, the origin of, 219; its character and 
style, 252. 

Gospel according to Matthew, the, written in Hebrew, 220, 252. 

Gospel according to Luke, the, indications in, of the mind of Paul, 292. 

Gospel, the fourth, 235. 

Gospels, the first three, 216, 219. 

Greek paganism and Christianity, 162. 

Greek poets quoted by Paul, gg. 


Hebrews, the epistle to the, author of, 169, Note J, 498; probable 
design of, 232; its relation to Pauline thought, 292 ; traces in, of 
Judaism of Alexandria, 293. 

Hellenist Jews, 54, 55. 

Heresy, symptoms of, in early Church, 297; of Ephesian and Colos- 
sian Churches, 327. 


Herod Agrippa, 87, 88, 196. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 517 


Hierapolis, 148. 
Hierarchical theory of Church government referred to, 35, 50, 56, 71, 
Ὁ, S55 00,110; 131, 132, 140, 104: 2055 2:1, 214; 333, 343; 345, 


359, 476. 
Humanity of Christ, as taught by Paul, 273. 


Imputed righteousness, James’s recognition of, 243 72. ; Paul’s doctrine 
of, 256. 

Individuality, the basis of the Church, 24; preserved by the sacred 
writers, 238, 251, 390. 


James, the son of Alpheeus, his mission in Egypt, 208. 

James and Jude, their epistles, Note H, 496. 

James, the Lord’s brother, distinguished from James, son of Alphzeuss 
go 2; his position in the Church at Jerusalem, go, 299 ; his char- 
acter and history, 91, 206; in the Council of Jerusalem, 132, 134; 
his death, 231 ; his views of Christian truth, 237 ; his epistle, 241; 
not the mere representative of the school of Judaizing Christians, 
242 ; his silence on the death, resurrection, and miracles of Christ, 
245; the Churches he had in view in his epistle, 246. 

James, son of Zebedee, the first apostle-martyr, 87. 

Jerusalem, the city of, its destruction, 399 ; immediate occasion of 
the siege of, 400; terrible features of siege of, 402; hostile fac- 
tions within, during siege of, 403 ; famine in, during siege of, 404 ; 
close of drama, 405; the burning of the temple of, 405; conse- 
quences to Christian Church of destruction of, 406, e¢ seg. 

Jerusalem, the Christian Church of, James’s influence in, ΟἹ, 299; as 
the early religious center of Christian Church, 93; appealed to by 
Church at Antioch, 128; feeling of, toward Paul, 299; character 
and tendencies of members of, 300. See Councz?. 

Jesus Christ, His purpose, 23; His redeeming work, according to 
Paul, 271 ; His eternal Sonship, 271; His relations to the race, 273. 

John, St.,his paramount influence in third period of apostolic age, 415 ; 
his natural disposition, 415 ; his vocation, 415; his method, 416 ; 
not the type of feminine gentleness, 417 ; his ardor, 417 ; his early 
life and preparation for his work, 418; his first religious impres- 
sions, 418; his call, 418; his view of Christ’s doctrine compared 
with that of other disciples, 419 ; his association with Peter, 420; 
his residence in Jerusalem, and supposed journeys to Rome and the 
country of the Parthians, 420; his temporary obscurity, 420 ; his 
view of Christ’s doctrine and work, 421; his contact with philo- 
sophic culture, 422; his residence at Ephesus, 423; his sphere of 


518 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


action, 424; striking incident in his apostolic visitation, 424 ; his 
relation to Judzeo-Christianity, 426; his banishment, 427 ; his gos- 
pel and epistles, 428; his last years, 429; his influence on after 
ages, 430; his theology, 430; source of his theology, 431 ; his doc- 
trinal statements compared with Paul’s, 442; his doctrinal start- 
ing-point, 442; his mysticism, 442; his teaching concerning the 
Divine Being, 443; prologue of his gospel, 445, 475 ; hisrecognition 
of the Holy Spirit, 446; on the Word and the world, 447 ; on the 
Word and redemption, 450; on the drawing of the Father, 451 ; 
on Moses and Christ, 452; on the incarnation and its significance, 
453; on the Saviour’s death, 456; on the Word in the Christian 
and-in the Church, 458; on election and faith, 459; on the moral- 
ity of love, 461 ; on the future of the Church, 461 ; his democratic 
view of the constitution of the Church, 476; closes the apostolic 
age, 479; authenticity of his gospel and epistles, Note M, 509. 
See Apocalypse and Primitive Church. 

Judaizing teachers, in Galatian Church, 304; among the Philippians, 
306; among the Thessalonians, 307; among the Romans, 308 ; 
among the Corinthians, 309; their real influence upon primitive 
Church, 316. 

Judaizing tendency in primitive Church, its development, 298 ; among 
Galatians and others, 303 e¢ seg. 

Judas Thaddeus, in Mesopotamia, 208. 

Jude, brother of our Lord, his work, 206. 


Laodicea, 148 ; epistle to Church at,193. 

Laying on of hands, 59, 357. 

Literature of the subject of the volume, Note A, 481. 

Lord’s Supper, the, celebration of, in primitive Church, 52, 377 ; 
grossly misrepresented by enemies of Christianity, 226. 

Luke, the physician, his history, 151 ; his gospel, 292. 

Lydia, 152. 

Lysias, the tribune at Jerusalem, 187. 


Macedonia, the appeal from, to Paul, 140. 

Magicians, their influence in first days of Christianity, 66. 

Mark, his gospel, 219, 252. See Gospel. 

Mark, John, companion of Paul, 116, 143. 

Matthew, in Arabia, 208. 

Matthias, in Ethiopia, 208. 

Miracles, distinguished from magic, 172; influence of on the spread 
of Christianity, 43. 


INDEX -OF- SUBJECTS. 519 


Missions, character of, undertaken by Paul, 203. 

Missions of primitive Church, part taken in, by the several apostles, 
204 ef seg. ; value of traditions concerning the, 207 ; extreme east- 
ern point of the, 208 ; mode of evangelization adopted in the, 216. 

Moral affinity, its influence on the apprehension of religious truth, 421. 


Nathanael and Bartholomew in Arabia, 208. 

Nero, 200; as a representative of paganism, 221 ; his part in perse- 
cution of Christian Church, 224; his mingled cruelty and buffoon- 
ery, 229; his persecution confined to Rome, 229. 

Nicholas, the Deacon, 57 ; heresy attributed to, 473. 


Octavia Poppzea, 200. 

Offices in primitive Church, the, 343. 
Onesimus, 194. 

Origin of evil, the, Paul’s teaching upon, 261. 
Original sin, Paul’s teaching upon, 262. 


Paganism, of Greece and Christianity, 162 ; of Rome and Christian- 
ΤΕΥ: 227. 

Palestine, Christian Churches of, persecution of, 230; development 
of Judaistic tendencies in, 299; how affected by the fall of Jeru- 
salem, 406. 

Pantheism, as taught by Simon Magus, 320. 

Paul, St., his great natural qualities, 95; his testimony to Christi- 
anity, 96; characteristics of his reasonings, 96; considered as a re- 
former, 97 ; preparation for his work, 97 ; early training, 98 ; early 
religious development, ror; unlike the Pharisees condemned by 
Christ, 102; dramatic form of some of his arguments, 103; contact 
with Stephen, 105; preparatory period before his conversion, 106 ; 

‘ miraculous circumstances attending his conversion, 106; discrepan- 
cies in narratives of his conversion, 107 7.; his conversion not com- 
pleted on the way to Damascus, 10g ; his residence in Arabia, 110 ; 
visits Jerusalem, 111 ; commanded to preach to the Gentiles, 111 ; 
his work in Jerusalem and at Antioch with Barnabas, 112; com- 
mencement of his apostolic work, 112; his claim to the apostolate, 
112 ; how he obtained knowledge of the divine history of salvation, 
115; his first missionary journey, 116; his change ofname, 118 7.; at 
Antioch in Pisidia, 118 ; his first proclamation of salvation by faith 
alone, 120; at Iconium, 121 ; at Lystra, 121 ; end of first missionary 
journey, 123; his apostleship discussed at the conference in Jerusa- 
lem, 125; his defense of his apostleship, 129; in the Council of 


520 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


his dispute with Peter at Antioch, 138; Aés second missionary 
journey, 143; accompanied by Silas, 144; his preaching, 144 ; his 
labors, 145 ; his asceticism, 145, 390; his thorn in the flesh, 145 ; 
his relations with Timothy, 146; relations with Epaphras, 147 ; 
in Galatia, 148 ; his summons to Macedonia, 149 ; at Philippi, 152 ; 
at Thessalonica, 155; at Athens, 157; at Corimth, 162; his Naz- 
aritish vow, 166; keeping the Pentecost at Jerusalem, 167; zs 
third missionary journey, 169; at Ephesus, 169 ; his epistle to the 
Galatians, 169 ; at Crete, 174; at Corinth, 174; first epistle to Tim- 
othy, 175; epistle to Titus, 175 ; epistle to Corinthians, 176; perse- 
cuted at Ephesus, 177; into Europe again, 180 ; second epistle to Co- 
rinthians, 180; in Achaia, 181 ; epistle to the Romans, r8r ; to Je- 
rusalem again, 181 ; his payment of charges for certain sacrifices, 185 ; 
his imprisonment, 189; before Ananias, 190; before Felix, 192; 
at Czesarea, 193; epistles to Ephesians, Colossians, Laodiceans, 
and Philemon, 193; before Festus, appeals to Czesar, 195 ; before 
Agrippa, 196; voyage to Rome, 197; arrival at Rome, 198; his 
conference with Jews at Rome, 199 ; affliction added to his bonds, 
199; his expectation of death, 201; second epistle to Timothy, 
201 ; his alleged second captivity, Note F, 492; characteristics of 
his mission work, 203; his death, 230; his influence on Christian 
doctrine, 234 ; his particular mode of regarding Christian truth, 240 ; 
his doctrine as set forth in his writings, 254; his attitude toward 
Judaism, 254; fullness of his doctrine, 255; moral character of his 
religious teaching, 256; on righteousness, 256; on the corruption 
of mankind, 258 ; on the opposition between flesh and spirit, 260 ; 
on the origin of evil, 261 ; on original sin, 262; on free grace, 263 ; 
on predestination, 264 ; on the salvation of the individual, 265 ; on 
the Mosaic dispensation, 268; on the eternal Sonship of Christ, 
2713; on redemption, 271; on Christ’s humanity, 273; on 
justification by faith, 279; on the Christian Church, 283; 
on the last times, 284; on the return of Christ, 286; on 
the relation between the two covenants, 287; on dualism, 
and on grace and freedom, 288; his use of Scripture, 290; his 
teaching based on that of Christ, 290; his influence on the gos- 
pel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, and the epistle to the He- 
brews, 292; his relations with the Church at Jerusalem, 299; his 
epistles to the Corinthians, with reference to the four parties there, 
311; on holy days, 364; on Christian worship, 368; on the sacra- 
ments, 373; on the Christian life, 381; as saint and apostle, 396; 
his statements of doctrine compared with those of St. John, 442° 
his epistles, Note G, 495. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 521 


Pentecost, the day of, 28; miracle of, Note D, 489. See Spirit. 

Persecution of the Christian Church, first outbreak of the, 37; offi 
cially commenced, 221 ; determining cause of, under Nero, 224; in 
Rome by Nero, 228; impression produced on the Church by the 
first, 229; in Palestine, 230. 

Peter, St., his influence in the primitive Church, 33; his history as a 
disciple, 33; his disposition, 33; his alleged primacy, 34; before 
the Sanhedrim, after Pentecost, 38; as the first apologist of the 
Church, 44; on faith in Christ, 47; not first bishop of Antioch, 77 ; 
and Cornelius, 79; and the Christians at Jerusalem, 83 ; his deliv- 
erance from prison, 88 ; tradition of visit to Rome disproved, 89 ; 
his part in Council of Jerusalem, 132; his dispute with Paul at 
Antioch, 138; his secondary part in history of Church after 
Council of Jerusalem, 210; his relations with Paul, 210; his 
work, 210; his residence at Babylon, 210; his alleged resi- 
dence at Rome, 211; occasion and characteristics of his epistle, 
211, 247; his Christian maturity, 212; did he go from Babylon to 
Rome? 213; his death, 214; his share in the gospel of St. Mark, 
219; particulars of his death and legend relating thereto, 230; his 
mode of regarding Christian truth, 241 ; his conception of the na- 
ture and work of Christ compared with that of St. Paul, 249; on 
faith, 250; on election, 251; influenced by St. Paul, 251; au- 
thenticity of the second epistle bearing his name, Note I, 497. 

Pharisaism, the spirit of, indestructible, 127. 

Philemon, the epistle to, 193. 

Philip, the apostle, his sphere of evangelistic work, 207. 

Philip, the deacon, 71 ; and the Ethiopian eunuch, 74. 

Philippi, its history and government, 151 ; Paul’s arrival at, 152; the 
Church at, 155, 306. 

Prayer, resorted to by Church in persecution, 41. 

Preaching, meaning of word in New Testament, 217. 

Predestination, Paul’s teaching upon, 264. 

Primitive Church, the, its peculiar mission, 25 ; its peculiar gifts, 26; 
union of human and divine elements in, 27; three periods of its 
history, 27; its rupture with Judaism, 32 ; its rapid increase, 35 ; 
first persecution of, 37 ; opposed by ridicule, calumny, and preju- 
dice, 42; miracles in, 42 ; not to be regarded as a Jewish sect, 46; 
its faith in Christ, 47 ; its doctrine not systematic, 48; its expec- 
tation of Christ’s return, 48 ; absence of fixed ecclesiastical organ- 
ization in, 48; influence of apostles in, 49; admission into, 513 
discipline of, 513; worship of, 51; community of goods in, 53; 
jealousy about distribution of alms in, 54 ; diaconate of the, 55, 3543 


522 INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


admission of Gentiles into, 82, 127; the elders of, 85, 346; the 
prophets of, 86, 341; not free from sectarian influences, 127 ; its 
missions, 205; symptoms of heresy in, 297; sacraments in, 345, 
373, 3773; Sabbath days in, 364 εὖ seg. ; mm the time of John, 464; 
progress of, from destruction of Jerusalem to close of first century, 
464; intermittent persecution of, 465; its great peril, 468; its 
more definite forms of heresy, 470; the democratic nature of its 
constitution, 476; gradual transformation of its style of worship, 
468. See Lecclesiastical Organization; Worship; Christian 
Life, ete. 

Priscilla and Aquila, 163, 389; at Ephesus, 167 ; instruct Apollos, 168. 

Prophesying in primitive Church, 341. 

Prophets in primitive Church, 86. 

Proselytes of the Gate, 135. 


Redemption, Paul’s teaching upon, 271; judicial theory of, 276, 
277 71. 

Resurrection, Paul on the, 285, 295 7. ; of Christ, its place in apos- 
tolic preaching, 44. 

Roman paganism and Christianity, 221. 

Romans, the epistle to the, 181; the ninth chapter of the epistle to 
the, 265. 


Sabbath, the, under the Christian dispensation, 364; the Lord’s day 
not put in its place, 367. See Paul and Primitive Church. 

Sacraments, the Christian, in primitive Church, 373 e¢ seg. 

Sadducean spirit, the, essentially persecuting, 37. 

Samaria, its people, 64; the Gospel introduced into, 71; the Chris- 
tian converts in, visited by Peter and John, 71; the influence of the 
Church in, upon Christian thought, 73. 

Sanhedrim, 36; Peter before the, 38. 

Saul of Tarsus, 64; influence of Stephen’s death upon, 63; his prep- 
aration and conversion, 95. See Paul. 

Scholastic spirit, the, among the Jews, 99. 

Scriptures, the holy, appealed to by Peter in proof of Christianity, 44; 
freedom with which quoted, 45; allegorical interpretation of, by 
heretics, 325; use of by Paul, 290. 

Sergius Paulus, 117. 

Silas, or Silvanus, 144; at Babylon with Peter, 212. 

Simon Magus, 66; his system, 68, 318; his baptism, 71; his subse- 
quent history, 73; the first heretic, 318; his pantheism, 319; his 
immorality, 321. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 523 


Simon Zelotes, his sphere of evangelistic work, 208. 

Socrates before Athenian judges compared with Christians before 
the Sanhedrim, 39. 

Solitude as a preparation for great service, 110. 

Spirit, the Holy, progressive action of, 26; on the day of Pentecost, 
28; and the gift of tongues, 30; sometimes given before baptism, 
51; often given to new converts without their concurrence, 72 ; 
never does violence to human freedom, 81. 

Spiritual crisis, times of, Ior. 

Stephen, his natural qualities, 57; his apology, 505 his death, 62, 
et seq. 

Stephanus, Crispus, and Gaius, 164. 

Sword, the, not to be appealed to by the persecuted, 4o. 

Synagogue, rulers of the, 84. 

Systems of theology, the product of post-apostolic times, 239. 


Tarsus, the schools of, 98. 

Teaching, the gift of, in primitive Church, 343. 

Theosophy of the East, the attempt to combine Christianity with 
the, 318. 

Thessalonica, 155; epistle to Church at, 165. 

Thomas, in Parthia, 208. 

Thorn in the flesh, the, of Paul, 145. 

Timothy, his history and character, 146; Paul’s first epistle to, 175 ; 
second epistle to, 201. 

Titus, with Paul at Jerusalem, 128; Paul’s epistle to, 175. 

Tongues, the gift of, 30; error of Irenzeus and Tertullian with re- 
spect to, 31; in the second period of the apostolic age, 340. 

Tubingen School, the hypothesis of, concerning doctrinal differences 
in the primitive Church, untenable, 236. 


Vow of Paul, the disputations respecting, 167 7. 


Worship in primitive Church, marked by differences between Jewish 
and Gentile converts, 361 ; places in which offered, 363 ; times for, 
observed, 364; lack of liturgical element in, 368; rules for, given 
by Paul, 368; essential acts of, 369; teaching in connection with, 
370; prayer, 371; singing, 372; the sacraments, 373; indications 
of a transformation in the style of, 468. 


PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED OR 


OLD TESTAMENT. 


Genests. 

Ch, Ver. Page 
9. 4:5 136 
Numbers. 

6. 8,9 185 
Deuteronomy. 

105 15 84 
23:... 1 75 
1 Samuel. 

TO. 5 185 
1 Kings. 
eZ 184 
2 Kings. 

1. 24. 64 
Lsra. 

Pama te 65 
Isaiah. 

6.5.36, 7. 29 
NEw TESTAMENT. 
Matthew. 

4. 21, 18-22 418 
9. 18 84 
g. 28 201 
tones 418 
15. 20-28 419 
16. 16, τῇ 33 
16. 18 34 71. 
ΠῚ 419 
19. 15 357 
19. 30 291 
20. 16 291 


REFERRED TO. 


Ch. Ver. Page 
21, ΣΙΝ, 220 
21.22 291 
24. 5 435 
2A. ΠῚ 436 
26. 37 419 
Mark 
Is. 19, 20 418 
10. 31 291 
ΕἸ. 24 201 
Luke. 
Ter ok 219, 220 
τς I-II 418 
mee} 418 
9. 49; 50, 54 419 
10: τον τ 292 
13. 13 357 
15. 292 
Fohn 
I. I 445 
Tire st 446 
I. 5 451 
I. 6-8 453 
1 Ὁ 448 
1: 40 447 
ΠῚ 450 
I. 13 459 
I. 14 453 
I. 14, 18 444 
1. ty 452 
1: 18 443, 446 
I. 29 457 
Ie 337, 418 
I. 44 33 
Tees) 29 
2. 14 451 
3. 18, 19 459 


Ch. Ver. Page 
3: 20; 21 451 
3. 36 460 
4- 9 73 
4: 22 453 
4: 24 443; 441 
4. 25 66 
5. 24-30 462 
5: 40 452 
5. 43 446 
5. 46 452 
6. 29, 53 459; 460 
6. 44 451 
6. 48, 50 386 
6. 53 456 
7: 17 452 
728 446 
7: 37 451 
7- 39 447 
8. 23-49 451 
8. 22 446 
8. 44 449 
8. 48 73 
ΤῸ ΟἹ 456 
10. 18, 30 455 
16.727 451 
10. 37, 38 457 
11. 41, 42 455 
12: 29. 458 
12) 50 460 
ee 462 
14. 6 453 
14. 26 446 
14. 30 456 
15. 1-4, 16 459, 460 
15-22 446 
107 7 458 
10: 15 30, 447 
17: 21 463 
Ig. 26, 27 419 


Ἐν ΠΝ τα γεν fe eta itce τον τῆν Ch ot ΠΡῸΣ ΤᾺ κὸν ΤᾺ Τὸ τ τον Ee Ὁ σον Ca NON SCN TSENG ΣΝ μα 


PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED. 


ξ Page ; Ch, Ver. Page 
27 418} 8 2 381 
8 419| 8. 106 
22 447| 8. 13-17 374 
15 134] 8 14 420 
8. 25 420 
oie 8. 37, 38 374 
21 Sy ie Our Ὶ 105 
21,20 50; FES ΟΣ 2 76 
4 30, 52) 9. 7 107 
10 77| 9 35» 36 76 
14 559: 95:3 394 
15 4310. I 79 
[7 48| 10. 3-8 80 
17-20 45| 10. 10-17 80 
25-34 45 το. 44-47 376 
32 44 το. 47 81, 374 
33, 34 47 το. 48 51 
G9 2° 51: 3053-374) Στὸ 77 
42 49, 5211. 20 77 
46 53| 11. 28 87, 341 
I 420 | II. -30 83, 299 
15 44, 47/12. 1,2 7 
18 45| 12. 12 53, 116 
19; 20 AS P13. 2 388 
4 35. 13:..05 359; 388 
γι 253: 13. 116 
8, 9 38 | 13. 118 
Io 35, 44 F323, 2532, 33. 
ἘΤ ΤῊ 45 44,45 110; 120 
12 47 14. 11-14 32 
18 38. | T4e153:17; 18 122 
24 a oe 356, 388 
24-30 41 | 14. 27 123 
26 47| 14. 36 121 
20 ΠΕΡῚ 127 
34. Ba toes O 126 
35 49, 53| 15- 7-12 134 
I-II 5115. 15-18 135 
4 532 15. 21 135, 140 
15, τό 36/15. 22 131 
17 33 | 15. 28, 29 137 
26 37 16. 14 374 
31 39 | 16. 15 374: 377 
37 61| 16. 17 153 
39 40] 16. 21 222 
2 49| 16. 32 376 
3 356 | 16. 33 374 
6 358| 16. 40 363 
13, 14 5O.| 7. 7 157, 363 
26-29 ΘΟ ΗΠ 75-12 157 
29-35 60] 17. 23 289 


Ch. Ver. Page 
17. 26 270, 393 
ἘΠ 2. 270 
17. 28 99, 260 
18. .2 389 
18 5513 145 
18: 363 
18 ὃ 84, 376 
τὸν 1. 84. 
18. 18. 212 
18. 24, 28 168 
18. 26 389 
I9. 9 366 
Ig. 27 178 
ΟῚ 178 
26: 4 176 
20. 7 367, 377 
ΖΟ: ὙΠ 348 
202219320 145 
20. 23-31 183 
20. 28 351 
20. 31533 371 
20. 35 201 
21. ype ee: 420 
ZI kOe. 30 300 
21. 38 187 
Saeed 99, ΙΟΙ 
2 αὐ τὸ 107 
22. 17-22 III 
2252 ΤῈ 
ΠΕ ΟΣ 190 
24. 23 193 
25: τ 15. ὃ 195 
25. ΤΌ 196 
26. 4-23 197 
26. 14 107 
26. 16-18 109 
26. 24 196 
26. 28 197 
yee 198 
28. 25-27 199 
Romans. 
I. 3,4 273 
Το Ὁ 308 
are 337 
I. 17 279 
I. 18-21 270 
I. 23-32 258 
Beas 259, 286 
a ἴτὰ 279 
Re 54. 260 


526 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN 


Ch. 
2. 
2. 


POD MK MMH MC WH KIWI ITADOMMNANH YH YH Yo 


Ver. Page 
14,15 257, 270 
23 258 
2 267° 
IO 258 
21 256 
22 258, 259 
24 279 
25 267 
15-22 268 
25 274, 278 
12 275 
125 15 262 
12-19 274 
15 273 
18 275 
4 284 
5 281 
23 275 
8 269 
8-10 103 
12 268 
14-24 260 
23 260, 261 
3. *2604872).273; 
276 

9 278 
12 394 
15 279 
17 261 
22 286 
26 279 
29 280 
32 271 
5 272 
Il 266 
16 264 
I 308 
17 216, 280 
13 308 
15, 31 285 
23-25 285 
I 363 
5 283 | 
7 342, 346, 354 
28 352 
2-4 383 
6 261 
9 27ὃ 
= 394 
15 113 
16 113; 363 


CHURCH. 
Ch. Ver. Page | Ch. Ver. Page 
15.) 19 18I| 7. 13-16 389 
15. 24 ISE | [7.3 7 387 
15. 25-27, 31 182 9. δὲ 303 
15. 32 184, 218| 7. 39, 40 39° 
165.1 3255) 8& 6 272 
TG: 4 363) 8. 10-13 395 
16:55 S47 F309) δα ck 113 
16. 14, 15 "363 | 9. 5 353 
16. 16 394) 9. II, 13,14 2353 
τ τ 380} 9g. 12 145 
16. 21 349 | 9- 27 387 
ἐ τε τ 10:. .4. 272 
1 Corinthians. 10. 16 284, 345 
ἘΠ Ὁ 557. 10: 17 284. 
I. 12 311, 313 | 10. 23,24, 27 395 
1. 13 8.715.» 10. 27 138 
I. 14 164 | 10. 31 364. 
1. τό 276% αὖ ag 5 369 
13 1 28811. 18-22 364 
i. 20, 22 286 |.111220-22 310, 377 
I. 26 764 | 11: 23 379 
21: : | 282. Ike 25 284 
2). 2 274: 1: 30; 31 380 
ie see | 164. | 129 4. 340 
2 4 217 | 12. 8, 10 342 
2. 14 288 | 12. 9, τὸ 342 
92 14, 15 261 4) 12.175» 283 
Bo" hs 261 | 12: 28. 230; 340,343, 
3. 16 363 354 
3- 16, 17 283. : 13. 1 : 393 
53: ἢ, 5 312 14. 341 
4s τῆι το ἍῈῈ} τῆς τὸ: 20 372 
4. 18-20 210 14. 25 341 
4. 20 373 | 14. 26-35 343 
5. 1 311 | 14. 29 348 
S)2 380 | 14. 34 364, 369 
5. 4 344 15. 12-38 315 
5s 7 335 15. 14 278 
ὃ: Ὁ 70] ΤΠ 259 
5. 10 30515. 24-26 284. 
5. 11-13 283 | 15. 28 272, 286 
6. I 310. 3375) Th 32 178 
6:26 394 15. 33 29 
Ὅτ: Ὁ 256 15. 42-45 285 
6. 15-20 395 15- 54 273 
6. 19 167 | 16. 2 367 
7. Passim 388 τό... 3 300 
7. AS 315 | 16. 5, 6 218 
qe ἢ 166| τὸς. 7 175 
7. 7-8 145 z.| 16. 10, II 175 
VER he 201 τὸν 15 164, 376 


Ch. 
16. 


16. 


PHKOI σισισισψιψισιψι δ SP Goey dp 


ΟΝ NYY BOR ee ee es 


PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED. 


Ver. 
19 
20 


347: 


2 Corinthians. 


6 
17. [Ὁ 
55. 


283, 


5 FER, 


7) £O 
. 12 


Galatians. 


8 
9 127) 


363 
394 


345 
180 


217 
288 
287 
284 
346 
280 
286 
282 
278 
280 
277 
275 
363 


420 


Gs, SV; Dy Nr Oe art νος of cB fof cto) Go Op Ὁ ον Ga apt 


PNARKMANTEHDEYGOEOY PPPS YY rons 


Page , Ch. Ver. 


527 
Page , Ch. Ver. Page 
II-I5 138) 65 050 391 
20 282| 6. πὸ 304 
ie 103 τς Philippians. 
13 277| I. 1 348, 354 
16-27 209 |) (fiat 228 
16 290| I. 13 199 
17 269 I. 14 394 
19-23 287 | 216 200, 309 
24 269 ἘΠ 20-25 287 
1-6 257, |. ἸΠΕΖῚ 282 
4 272. 1. 275° 28 306 
6 279| 2 2,3 307 
9-11 205 2s: ς 386 
14, 15 ΠΣ lie 25 +05: 7 272 
15 149| 2 8 273,275 
22-26 200 2. II 278 
2,3 305, |e 2-* 19 279 
EO, (25 56 τι Ὁ 20, 225 147 
15 30 5 ss. = 307 
12 305-|. 3x Ὁ 102 
13 304} 3- 18 307 
17 306| 4. 2 307 
18 232 14.046 . 392 
Liphesians. ἜΝ τὰ 307 
; 337 Colossians. 

4,9 ACS ia ath 148 
9, 10 ers | 1 15 329 
23 28%, 284) σε) 271 
I 2s9| 1: 16 263, 329 
2 284 1 20 263 
5 279,|" Ὁ 272 
8 πο 2 Io 284 
18 270 | 2. 14 287 
20,22" = 283,409 | feet 284, 329 
4, 6 263 ΣΤ 287 
10, 15 284, 2: 18 325 
17 280| 2: 20-23 261 
18 280, 288 | κ: a Pea τι 
᾽ 32 ἢ ? ? 39 
iT” 34g 341 3. 16,13. 386 
15, 16 386 3: 16 372 
Ι 257; 282 | 4. 10 ἘΓ7 
4 390 4: 12 147 
2 282, 3861 4. ἴ5 347, 363 
14 Tih cae 369 

ee 332, εἶν 1 Thessalonians. 
7, ape A ZO Slee ΣῈ 156 
27 3324 ese 156 


528 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


Ω 


ψισισι ΒΝ we 


ADOSER PEOYOY Dro none 


YW PP on 


Ver. Page 
fe) 157 
2 156 
7 156 
13 217 
2 349 
6 307 
II 308, 387 
13-16 285 
14-18 285 
15 287 
20 371 
26 394 
27 309 
2 Thessalonians. 
4 307 
9 286 
2 308 
3-8 285 
5 370 
10 308 
10, 13 387 
6-14 380 
1 Timothy. 
4 325 
7 324 
II 217 
15 109 
19 324 
20 380 
I-2 383 
15 399 
I 356 
1,8 348 
2 352; 354 
16 373 
3 324, 388 
6 371 
7 324 
8 261 
14 146, 341, 351 
Ω 354 
17 351; 353 
23 147 
12 359 
20 325 
21 324 
2 Timothy. 
I-4 147 
ΠΝ 


Ch. Ver. Page 
ΠΕΡΙ 201 
ibe 27 217 
257 202 
2. δ 225 
ΠΣ ΡΟΣ 324 
5: 1 5 324 
713 202 
3: 14, 15 146 
3. 16 290 
Arak 286 
As 52 202 
4- 4 325 
4 5 349 
Ae t6 202 
4. 10 201, 306 
Ae Al 117 
4. 16-17 201, 202 

Titus. 
ἀπ 3 217 
ΤῊ δ 356 
I. 5,7 348 
I. 9. 352,379; 371 
I. 10 324 
ἜΣΠ ΤΙ 329 
ict 12 99, 174 
Ι. 14 224 
3: 12 1δῚ 
3: 13 175 
Philemon. 
I. 2 347, 363 
1. IO; 12 392 
128 147 
ie 24 117 
flebrews. 
I. 3 293 
iyo 5 302 
i ew 29 
CO aeyy ere) 203 
2: = 3 295 
oi yp 294 
3. 6 293 
O24 302 
6. 4-8 295 
21 362 
7. 26-28 346 
7: 27 294 
8. 10, II 346 
9. 20-26 204 
g. 26 362 


SPOT ra τη τ ΠΣ oto» ES SEO: Sha OTe πεῖσον ΟΣ τ 


So age ΣΡ ces ΣΟΙ pene te Ne RESIN EN Oe. os 


Ver Page 
I 295 
25 302 
I 295 
24 204 
29 295 
17 352 
Fames 

I 245 
g-II 393 
17 339 
21 242 
22 217, 242 
25 242 
I 245 
1-7 393 
2 364. 
ΤΙΣ ΠΗ: ΖΗ 
13,17 243, 244 
16 303 
18 243, 303 
19,22 243, 244 
15, 16 302 
II 241 
1-7 303 
246 

14 348, 380 
15 244 

1 Φείε7). 

3 250 
4 249, 250 
7 212 
10-12 248 
LI5°19. 3. 249; 250 
5 363 
Be 249 
9 251 
9; 10 249 
17 394 
21 251 
24 250 
15 251 
18 250 
21 274 
Ι 250, 251 
II 250 
12 306 
2,3 351 
12 144 


-PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE QUOTED. 529 


Ch. Ver. Page | Ch. Ver. Page| Ch. Ver. Page 


Ren ts E¥O, 210} 2-:: 8 401 | 3-10, 21 ΜΟΙ 
5- 14 394) 4- 16 443} 5- 5 430 
igi eas: 475) 5: I 

τευ i 5. 6 456, 498 i Passi 434 

I. 5 443| 5: 20 443, 444 7: 13-17 433 
I. 7 456 2 Yohn. 7. 14, 15 431 
oan 458) 7. 12 218] = 1 434 
2 456 EE ΤῸ 2 437 
2 4 472 3 fohn. Eis, 911 437 
2. 5-10 449:|, 1: 5) 6 47011. 11 439 
2 12 470] I. Q-IO0 470, 476{12- 5 . 437 
2. 16,17 450 ὃ 12-16 Passim 434 
2. 27 461 Revelation. | ee 438 
2. 27,28 477] I. 9 427|13- 4 437 
3 «I 444) 1. 17 ᾿ 43113: 11{-14 437 
ὭΣ ΞΕ 462| I. 18 AZT 1 5. 35. 4 431 
τ Ὁ 7.3.0 2. 4 468/14. 8 436 
3. 4 449) 2. ὃ 43116. 15 434 
me 456] 2. 9,10 465|17- 12-15 438 
3. 9, 10-15 460, 461| 2. 14 469/|18,19 Passim 434 
a5; τὸ 461 | 2. 14-20 472) 18. 20-24 436 
3. 20 2243" Ze 35 472|19- 20 438 
4. I 447| 2. 24 473|20. 1-6, IL 434, 435 
An 2 447,454! 3. 9 465 | 21,22 Passim 434. 
AS 3 454, 472] 3 τὸ 469 | 21,22 Passim 440 
4- 7 444| 3: 17 469/22. 13,16 430, 431 

i ees 


INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED OR REFERRED TO, 


AND OF THE SUBJECTS OF QUOTATION OR REFERENCE, 
--------- -  Φ- -----ς----- 


ABDIAS. On the apostolic age, 204, 21. 

AMBROSE. On teaching and baptizing by the laity of the early 
Church, 345. 

ARISTOPHANES. On the use of the word “ bishop,” 349, 7. 

AvuGustTI. On the places of Christian worship in the first century, 
364; on holy days in the early Church, 367, 968 2. ; on the litur- 
gical element in early Christian worship, 371  ; on the hymns of 
the early Church, 373 7. ; on Christian baptism, 376 . ; on the cel- 
ebration of the Lord’s Supper, 377 

AUGUSTINE, ST. The prayer of Stephen, 63; on the decrees of the 
Council of Jerusalem, 138 ; on the ministry of James at Jerusalem, 
350; on the Law of Christ, 386; on the laying on of hands, 358 ; 
on the Apostle John, 422; on tradition that John did not die, 429. 

34 


530 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


BARONIUS. On Peter’s preaching at Rome immediately after his 
deliverance from prison, 89; on the division of the world into fields 
of labor by the Apostles, 89 ; on the date of the Epistle of Peter, 
212 71. ; on Peter’s sojourn at Rome, 213. 

BAUMGARTEN, On the relation of the apostolate of the Twelve to 
the activity of the Christian Church, 78 z. ; on the decree of the 
Council of Jerusalem, 137; on Paul’s vow, and its fulfillment at 
Corinth, 167 7. ; on Paul’s judgment of the Jews as a nation, 199. 

Baur, F. On the part of the Pharisees in the rupture between the 
early Church and Judaism, 32; on the number of Christian con- 
verts on and immediately after the day of Pentecost, 35 ; on the 
identity of primitive Christianity with Judaism, 48; on Stephen’s 
apology, 59; on thedifferent accounts of Paul’s conversion, 107 7. ; 
on Paul’s recovery from blindness at Damascus, 110 71. ; on Paul’s 

_ first missionary journey, 123 7. ; on Paul’s farewell to the elders of 
the Chnrch at Ephesus, 184 7.; on the part of Judaizing Chris- 
tians in the persecution and arrest of Paul at Jerusalem, 186, 300 ; 
on the radical opposition of parties in the Church of the apostolic 
age, 234; on the founding of the Church at Rome, 308 ; on the party 
of Cephas at Corinth, 314; on the first heretics as referred to in the 
pastoral epistles, 326; on the doctrine of John, 442 71. 

Baur, W. On the hymns of the early Church, 373 z. 

BEDE. On the gift of tongues at Pentecost, 32. 

-BincHAM. On the constitution of the Christian Churches of the first 
century, 331 71. ; on the episcopacy of the Apostles, 351; on the 
worship and Christian life of the first century, 361 ; on the exist- 
ence of ‘‘sanctuaries”’ in the first century, 364; on the liturgical 
use of the Lord’s Prayer in the first century, 371; on the use of 
the formula of Christian baptism, 375 71. 

BLEEK. On Apollos, 169 71. ; on marks of the Pauline school of 
thought in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 292; on the apostasies 
which threatened the Church of Jerusalem, 302 72. 

BLUMHART. On the fragment of the preaching of Peter quoted by 
Cyprian, 214 7. 

BUNSEN. On the authenticity of fragments of a book composed by 
Simon Magus, or one of his disciples, 69 7. ; on the constitution 
of the Churches of the first century, 331 7. ; on the visible Church 
as recognized by the Apostles, 336 2.; on the development of 
Church organization, 352 7.; on fragments of ancient liturgies, 
372 2. ; on the significance of Christian baptism in the apostolic 
age, 373; on the eucharistic prayers of the early Church, 378 #. ; 
on the angels of the seven Churches, 476 2. 


INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED. 531 


Catiixtus, N. On the fields of mission-labor occupied by the 
Apostles, 204 e¢ seg. ; on John’s residence at Jerusalem, 420. 

CALVIN. On the worship of the unknown God at Athens, 161; on 
the elders of the primitive Church, 351 72. 

CHRYSOSTOM. On the deacons of the primitive Church, 56 z. ; on 
the labors of St. Paul, 203; on the name and office of Bishop, 
348 ; on John the Apostle, 417. 

Cicero. On the city of Antioch, 76; on the city of Athens, 158; 
on the light in which religion was regarded by Pagan antiquity, 222. 

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. On the daughters of Philip the 
Apostle, 208 7. ; on Peter’s words to his wife on going to death, 
230; on John’s labors and his visitation of the Churches, 424; on 
John and the robber, 424 e¢ seg. ; on John’s official position in the 
Church, 476. 

CLEMENT OF ROME. His supposed allusion to Peter’s sojourn at 
Rome, 213; on the organization of the Christian Church, 409. 

CRUICE, ABBE. On the early influence of the Church at Rome, 309 ; 

CyPRIAN. His quotation of a fragment of Peter’s preaching, 214; 
on the laying on of hands, 358. 

Denys. On Peter’s sojourn at Rome, 214. 

DE WETTE. On the Jews who put forward Alexander at Ephesus, 
170; on the party ‘‘ of Christ” at Corinth, 314; on “the Light 
which lighteth every man,” 448. 

DIOGENES LAERTIUS. On the altar “το the Unknown God,’ 160. 

Dius Cassius. . On appeals to the emperors of Rome, 195 72. ; on 
the martyrdom of Flavius Clement and his wife, 467. 

EpIPHANES. .On the religious tendencies of the Samaritans, 66; on 
Dositheus, the pseudo Messiah, 67; on the position of James in the 
Church at Jerusalem, 350; on the Christians at Jerusalem at the 
time of its destruction, 406; on John and Ebion, 429 71. 

EvuseEBius. On the Ethiopian eunuch, 74, 75; on the tradition that 
Peter founded and governed the Church at’ Antioch, 77; on the 
martyrdom of James, son of Zebedee, 88; on the position of 
James “‘the Just ” in the Church at Jerusalem, 90, 350; on John, 
surnamed Mark, 116; on the birthplace and nationality of Luke, 
[51 ; on the mission work of the Apostles, 204 #., 215, 218; on the 
labors of Andrew, brother of Peter, in Scythia, Thrace, and Mace- 
donia, 207; on the daughters of Philip the Apostle, 207 71. ; on the 
death and tomb of Philip, 209 ;-on the legend of the correspond- 
ence between Jesus Christ and the King of Edessa, 217 ; on the 
part of Peter in the production of the Gospel according to Mark, 
219, 220; on the language of the Gospel according to Matthew, 


532 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


220; on the apocryphal letter from Pilate to Tiberius, 224; on 
Nero, 282 ; on the tombs of Peter and Paul, 230; on the Christians 
at Jerusalem at the time of its destruction, 406 ; on the answer of 
certain Christians in Palestine to the question of Domitian about 
the kingdom of Christ, 407, 466; on the alleged second Council of 
Jerusalem, 410 72. ; on the proofs of the decay of Judzeo-Christian- 
ity, 413; on John ‘‘the Presbyter,” 423 7. ; on John and the rob- 
ber, 426; on the alleged pontificate of John, 426; on the Gospel 
according to John, 428; on John, and Cerinthus the heretic, 429 ; 
on the persecution by Domitian, 467 722. 

Fasricius. On the mission work of the Apostles, 204, 215. 

FROMMAN. On the doctrine of John, 442. 

GIESELER. On the confusion in the minds of the Roman Emperors 
as to the distinction between Christians and Jews, 465. 

GRIMM, JOSEPH. On the Samaritans, 66, 74; on the system of 
Simon Magus, 69 72. 

GUERICKE. On Christian worship in apostolic times, 361. 

HARNACK. On the worship of the primitive Church, 52, 361, 3693 
on the first Christians and the Sabbath, 53; on teaching and bap- 
tism by the laity in the primitive Church, 345; on the Lord’s 
Supper as observed in the primitive Church, 378. 

HeEropotus. On the city of Corinth, 162. 

HEGESIPPUS (in Eusebius.) On the position of James in the Church 
at Jerusalem, 350; on the answer of certain Christians in Pales- 
tine to the question of Domitian about the kingdom of Christ, 407 ; 
on the alleged second Council of Jerusalem, 410 72. 

HirppoLtytus. On the history and doctrines of Simon Magus, 73 e¢ 
seg.; on the heresies of the second century, 328; on the Nicolai- 
tans and Cerinthus, 473 7., 474 2. ; on the Quatordecimonians, 479. 

IRENUS. On the gift of tongues, 31; on Nicholas, the Deacon, 
57 2., 4733; on Simon Magus, 68, 70 z., 320; on the place of 
Peter’s death, 214 ; on the commencement of Ebionitism, 414; on 
the relations between Peter and John, 420; on John’s residence at 
Ephesus, 423; on the heresy of Cerinthus, 474. 

JEROME. On the Ethiopian eunuch, 75; on the founding and gov- 
ernment of the Church at Antioch by Peter, 77 ; on the change of 
the name of Saul, 118 7. ; on the labors of Paul, 203; on the ad- 
ministration of the sacrament by the laity, 345; on the name and 
office of bishop, 348; on the pontificate of John, 426 7. ; on the 
Gospel according to John, 4209. 

JosEPHus. On the day of Pentecost, 28 21. ; on the magistrate who 
arrested Peter and John after the healing of the lame man, 37; on 


INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED. 533 


the Samaritans, 64, 65 ; on the planting of Christianity in Cyprus, 
76; on the city of Antioch, 76; on the death of Herod Agrippa, 
89; on the exorcists at Ephesus, 172; on the vow of the Nazarite, 
185 z.; on the Egyptian at Jerusalem, who professed to be a 
prophet, 187; on Felix the procurator, 191 ; on Festus, successor 
of Felix, 194; on the history and position of ‘‘ King Agrippa,” 
196 ; on Octavia Poppzea, 200; on the Jewish colony in Babylon, 
210, 211; on the Jewish colony at Rome, 309; on the influence 
of the ascetic tendency of Judaism on the heresies of Colosse and 
Ephesus, 327 ; on the siege and fall of Jerusalem, 400 e¢ seg. 

Justin Martyr. On Simon Magus, 68; on the rulers of syna- 
gogues, 84 72. ; on the calumnies against the first Christians, 226 ; 
on the Sabbath in the primitive Church, 368 ; on a Nazarite sect 
in the second century, 413. 

LANGE. On the Council of Jerusalem, 137; on the city of Corinth, 
163; on the vows fulfilled by Paul at Corinth, 167 7. ; on the mis- 
sion-work of the Apostles, 209, 210. 

LECHLER. On the influence of the fall of Jerusalem upon the rela- 
tions between Judzeo-Christianity and the Church, 412 71. ; on the 
doctrinal basis of the Apocalypse and the fourth Gospel, 431 71. 

LrEo. On division of the world into fields of labor by the Apostles, 89. 

LucKE. On John the Apostle, 415 2. ; on the alleged journeys of 
John to Rome, and into the country of the Parthians, 420; on 
John the Presbyter, 423 72. ; on the persecution suffered by John, 
427 71. ; on the posthumous influence of John, 430; on the ‘‘ Light 
which lighteth ‘every man,” 448. 

MARCELLINUS, A. On a pagan custom illustrative of the account 
given in Acts of the silver-shrine makers at Ephesus, 171 71. 

MINUTIUS FELIX. On the practices of the primitive Christians, il- 
lustrative of the calumnies against them, 226, 227. 

Monop, A. On John the Apostle, 415 71. 

NEANDER. On the community of goods in the primitive Church, 
53 z.; on the gift of prophecy in the Christian Church, 87 ; on the 
name Saul, 98; on the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, 137 ; 
on the vow which Paul fulfilled at Corinth, 167 71. ; on the case of 
Onesimus, 194 71. ; on the spiritual position of Paul when he wrote 
the Epistle to the Philippians, 2o1 7. ; on the death of James, the 
brother of the Lord, 232 2. ; on his doctrine, 241 ., 246; on the 
gift of teaching in the primitive Church, 351 72. ; on 1 Cor. xvi, 2, 
367 2. ; on the doctrine of John the Apostle, 442 72. 

OLSHAUSEN. On the Jewish exorcists at Ephesus, 172 71. 

ORIGEN. On the creed of the Samaritans, 66 7. ; on Dositheus the 


534 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


pseudo-Messiah, 67; on the founding and government of the 
Church at Antioch by Peter, 77 .; on the different modes in 
which “the Word”’ is revealed, 421. 

Orosius. On the persecution by Nero, 229 71. 

PAPIAS (in Eusebius.) On Peter having an interpreter at Rome 
32 2. ; on the preference of the primitive Church for the living to 
the written word, 218; on the origin of the Gospel according to 
Mark, 219; on the origin and language of the Gospel according to 
Matthew, 220; on Johnthe Apostle, and John the Presbyter, 423 71. 

PAUSANIAS. On the altar to the unknown God at Athens, 160; on 
the Temple of Diana at Ephesus, 170. 

PHILOSTRATUS. On the school of learning at Tarsus, 98 7. ; on the 
devoutness of the people at Athens, 158, 160; on the inhabitants 
of Ephesus, 171. 

PLiny. On the name of Candace, 74 z.; on the blaspliemous as- 
sumptions of Domitian, 466 71. 

Reuss. On the place where the Epistles to the Thessalonians were 
written, 165; on the date of Paul’s voyage to Crete, 176 7. ; on 
the period in which the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians 
were written, 194 71. ; on “‘ the engrafted word,” James i, 21, 242 71. ; 
on James’s doctrine of faith, 243 7. ; on the silence of Peter with 
respect to the law, 249 z. ; on the word ““ Faith,” 281 22. ; on the 
doctrine of faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 295 7. ; on the 
party “οἵ Christ ” at Corinth, 314 21. ; on the first heretics as re- 
ferred to in the pastoral epistles, 326 7. ; on the ecclesiastical con- 
stitution described in the pastoral epistles, 352 7. ; on the doctrine 
of John the Apostle, 442 7. ; on the nature of ‘‘ the Word,” John 
i, 18, 446 2. ; on the teaching of John concerning the Spirit, 
447 2. ; onthe representation given of Satan in the fourth Gospel, 
449 71. ; on the humiliation of the Word, 454 71. 

RITSCHL. On the identity of primitive Christianity with Judaism, 
48 z. ; on the constitution of the Churches in the apostolic age, 
331 72. ; on the right of all believers to teach in the public worship 
of the primitive Church, 344 7. ; on the supposed sacerdotal order 
in the Churches founded by Paul, 345 71. ; on the laying on of hands, 
357 z.; on the alleged second Council of Jerusalem, 411 7. ; on 
the influence of the Fall of Jerusalem on the relations between 
Judzeo-Christianity and the Church, 411-7. ; on the angels of the 
Seven Churches, 476 7. 

RouTH (passages given in Routh’s “ Reliquize Sacre.) On the cal- 
umnies against the primitive Church, 227; on the circumstances 
leading to the death of James, brother of the Lord, 231 72. ; on the 


INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED. 535 


answer given by certain Christians to Domitian concerning Christ’s 
kingdom, 407 7., 466 7. ; on the persecution by Domitian, 467 71. 

RortHeE. On the constitution of the Churches of the first century, 
331 2#.; on the words “elder” and ‘ bishop,” 348 7. ; on the 
“elders” of the primitive Church, 351 7. ; on the deaconesses of 
the primitive Church, 355 71. ; on the laying on of hands, especially 
in the case of Timothy, 357 71. 7 on the alleged second Council of 
Jerusalem, 410 z. ; on the angels of the Seven Churches, 476 72. 

ScHaFr. On the deaconesses of primitive Church, 355 7. ; on the Sab- 
bath in primitive Church, 366; on the Lord’s Supper in primitive 
Church, 379; on the Christian life of primitive Church, 381 7. 

SCHENKEL. On the party “οἵ Christ” at Corinth, 314 71. 

SCHERER. On the apostolate in general, and that of St. Paul, 114 71. 

Scumip. On the types of doctrine presented in the second period of 
the apostolic age, 240 7. ; on the passage 1 Peter i, 11, 249 7. 5 
on the doctrine of John the Apostle, 442 z 

SCHWEGLER. On the identity of primitive Christianity with Judaism, 
48 2., 92 7. ; on the party “‘ of Christ”’ at Corinth, 314 7. ; on the first 
heretics as referred to in the pastoral epistles, 326 7. ; on the cessa- 
tion of the Jewish sacrifices, 411 72. ; on the alleged confirmation by 
John of Judeeo-Christianity, 426 7. ; on the doctrine of John, 442 2. 

*SENECA. On the disposition of Gallio, the proconsul, 165 7. 

SocRATES (Ecclesiastical Historian.) On the apostolic teaching 
concerning holy days, 367. 

STRABO. On the school of learning at Tarsus, 98. 

SUETONIUS. On the banishment of the Jews from Rome by Clau- 
dius, 223; on the blasphemous claims of Domitian, 467 71. 

Tacitus. On the agitation of men’s minds in the reign of Claudius, 
150; on the character of Felix, the Procurator, 191 ; on the influ- 
ence of the prefect Burrhus on Nero, 198 72. ; on the character of 
Nero, 201 ; on the renewal of the Haruspices under Claudius, 2225 
on Nero’s calumnies against the Christians, 225, 226, 228; on 
Nero’s persecution of the Christians, 229; on the miseries of the 
Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, 406 7. 

TERTULLIAN. On the gift of tongues in the primitive Church, 31 ; 
on the imprisonment of Paul and-Silas at Philippi, 154; on Peter’s 
residence at Rome, 214; on the supposed letter from Jesus Christ 
to Tiberius, 224 72, ; on the calumnies against the early Christians, 
227; on the laying on of hands in baptism, 358 71. , on baptism for 
the dead, 375 71. ; on the martyrdom of John, 427 71. 

THEODORET. On the missions of the primitive Church, 216; on n the 
identity of elders and bishops, 348 z. 


536 EARLY YEARS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


THILO. On the mission-work of the Apostles, 205 72. 

THIERSCH. On the place where the disciples were on the day of 
Pentecost, 28 7. ; on the observance of the Sabbath by the first 
Christians, 53 7. ; on the office of the first deacons, 57 2. ; on the 
apology of Stephen, 62 z. ; on the basis of the sacerdotal system, 
85 2. ; on the preaching of Peter at Rome, 89 722. ; on the advice 
of James concerning Christian converts from paganism, 135 72. ; on 
the monopoly of the gift of teaching claimed for ecclesiastics, 
343 2. ; on the supposed second Council of Jerusalem, 410 7. ; on 
the angels of the Seven Churches, 476 71. 

THOLUCK. On John the Apostle, 415 2.; on ‘‘the Light which 
lighteth every man,” 448 72. 

TISCHENDORF. (Edition of Apocryphal Acts of Apostles and Gos- 
pels.) On the mission-work of the Apostles, 205 72. ; on the spring 
of water said to have gushed from the tomb of John, 430 2. 

TILLEMONT, L. DE. On Peter’s journey to Rome, 80 7. ; on Ana- 
nias of Damascus, 110 7. ; on Christ’s preference for John, 419 7. ; 
on John’s supposed journeys to Rome, and into the country of the 
Parthians, 420 z. ; on the tradition that John did not die, 429 71. 

ViTRINGA. On the difference between the first deacons and those 
mentioned by St. Paul, 56 z. ; on the elders of synagogues, 84 71. ; 
on the rulers of the synagogues, 84 2. ; on the constitution of the 
Churches in apostolic times, 331 z.; on the right of every pious 
Jew to teach in the synagogue, 343 #.; on the laying on of hands 
in the appointment of rabbis, 358; on Christian worship in apos- 
tolic times, 361 2. ; on the church being the house of God, 364 ; 
on the parallel between the prayers of the Church and those of the 
Synagogue, 371 71. ; on excommunication from the synagogue, 379. 

WIESELER. On Luke’s designation of Sergius Paulus, 117 72. ; on the 
date of Paul’s voyage to Crete, and of the epistle to Timothy, and 
that to Titus, 175 7. ; on Paul’s payment of the charges of some 
who had taken the Nazaritish vow, 185 z.; on torture under the 
Roman law, 189 7. ; on the jurisdiction of the Jews in religious mat- 
ters when under the Romans, 190; on military captivity under the 
Romans, 193; on the Epistle to Philemon, 194 71. ; on the preetorian 
guard, 197 71. ; on the death of Burrhus, and on his successors, 201 7. 

WINER. On the brethren of the Lord, go z. 

XENOPHON. On a custom illustrative of the usage of the primitive 
Church in the celebration of the Agapze, 377 21. 

XIPHILINI. See Dius Cassius, 467. 


Works BY THE pAME AUTHOR. 


I. 


Fesus Christ: His Times, Life, and Work. 
Translated by ANNIE Harwoop. 12mo., pp. 496. $3 75. 


One of the most valuable additions to Christian literature which the 
present generation has seen.— Contemporary Review. 


M. de Pressensé is not only brilliant and epigrammatic, but bis sen- 
tences flow on from page to page with a sustained eloquence which 
never wearies the reader. The life of Christ is more dramatically 
unfolded in this volume than in any other work with which we are 
acquainted.—Spectator. 


The successive scenes and teachings of our Lord’s life are told with 
a scholarly accuracy and a glowing and devout eloquence which are 
well presented to the English reader in Miss Harwood’s admirable 
translation. — British Quarterly Review. 

The work of an able and excellent author, whose appreciation of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, both in his person and in his work, is at once pro- 
found and discriminating, and whom no doubts or difficulties hinder 
from claiming the honor due to the Name that is above every name. 
In point of learning, intellectual power, and that charm of brilliancy of 
diction for which the French language is so remarkable when wielded by 
a master, the merit of this work is remarkably high.—Sunday Magazine. 


Its arguments are sound, clear, and well illustrated. Of its learning 
there can be but one opinion, as its pages every-where abound with the 
results of thorough, well-digested, and extensive research.— 716 Rock. 


It isa book eminently adapted to be useful.— Christian Work. 


11. 


The Mystery of Suffering, and Other .Dtiscourses. 
New Edition. 


In these sermons we recognize the same intellectual power, the same 
exquisite felicity of diction, the same sustained and dignifled eloquence, 
and the same persuasive invigorating Christian thougnt which are con- 
spicuous in that work—[‘‘Jesus Christ: His Times,’ etc.]—British 
and Foreign Evangelical Review. 


. . . The tone of the discourses is so tenderly beautiful that a reader 
who did not believe one word of the Christian mysteries might he 
affected by it.—London Review. 

Sermons brimming up and running over with truth and beauty.—- 
Weekly Review. ᾿ ᾿ : 

These are very remarkable discourses. They are distinguished by 
all the nice analysis of thought and glow of feeling so characteristic of 
Dr. Pressensé’s ministry and writings.—EHvangelical Magazine. 

A volume of beautiful and thoroughly Christian sermons.—Zondon 
Quarterly Review. 

They are not ordinary sermons, but replete with valuable thoughts, 
often beautifully expressed, and are characterized by true pathos and 
holy unction.— United Methodist Free Church Magazine. 


WorkKS BY THE pAME jfuTHOR, 


eS 


11" 


The Church and the French Revolution. 


A History of the Relations of Church and State from 1789 
to 1802. In crown 8vo. 


M. de Pressensé is well known and deservedly respected as one of 
the leading divines of the Evangelical section of the French Protestant 
Church. He is a learned theologian, and a man of cultivated and lib- 
eral mind. In the present monograph he comes before us as the his- 
torian of a period which he rightly judges to have a more than local 
and temporary interest in the fortunes of the national Church of France. 
And, on the whole, he has done his work not only ably, but impar- 
tially. . . . We are not aware that any previous writer has treated the 
subject from the purely ecclesiastical point of view.—Saturday Review. 


EY. 
Early Years of Christianity. 


Translated by ANNIE HARwoop. 12mo. 


This is a sequel to Dr. Pressensé’s celebrated book on the “ Life, 
Work, and Times of Jesus Christ.’”? We may say at once that, to the 
bulk of liberal Christians, Dr. Pressensé’s achievement will be very 
valuable.— Atheneum. 


De Pressensé tells the glorious narrative with singular force and 
clearness of expression.——Lritish Quarterly Review. 


The great theme on which he has labored with the utmost earnest- 
ness and zeal suffers no loss of color or life. He holds his brilliant 
intellectual gifts and his profound learning subordinate to his fervent 
aud absolute faith in the divinity of his Lord and Saviour; but he is 
well entitled to our credit when he declares that the feeling which has 
inspired the book has laid no fetters on his freedom of examination.— 
Daily Telegraph. 


It is impossible to part from these graphic and learned representa- 
tions of the purest ages of Christianity without a deep reverence for 
the ability of the author as a scholar, and his zealous advocacy of the 
truth as a Christian.— The Rock. 


Was 
The Land of the Gospel: 
Notes of a Journey in the East. 


_ He gives us his first and freshest impressions as entered in his 
journal upon the spot; and these will be found full of interest, 


eee ally to every thoughtful reader of the New Testament.—Zvan- 
gelical Christendom. 


NOE WB OFOvR 8 
PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & LANAHAN, 


go5 BROADW AN, ΝΕ YORE. 


Sermons. 


By Rev. RicHarD WinTER Hamitton, D.D., LL.D., Author 
of “The Doctrine of Rewards and Punishments,” ‘‘ Pastoral 
Appeals,” ete. With a Sketch of his Life by Rev. BisHop 
Stupson. 12mo., pp. 479. Toned Paper. Price, $1 75. 


Hamilton was celebrated for his conversational powers, his wide 
range of learning, his commanding oratory. His sermons remind us of 
what we heard once said of Dempster in his younger days: ‘ He laid 
his foundations in the skies, and built upward.’? There is a grandeur 
in their build, there is a ᾿ὙΠΩΘΠΟΗΒ in their component parts, that re- 
minds you of an old cathedral. Of all American preachers, he reminds 
us most of Henry B. Bascom. But what strikes one as a difference is, 
that with Bascom the grand pulpit oration was the end; when he had 
finished, and received the assurance that his sermon was an oratorical 
success, his entire object seemed gained. With the burning as well as 
the lofty soul of Hamilton it was but a means, an instrument, upon 
which, as a production, he set no high estimate, since he was looking 
to a further end—the success of the cause for which he wrought.... 
His sermons cannot be recommended as a model. They serve as a 
mental stimulus. They are grand Miltonian poems. At thesame time 
they are rich unfoldings of sacred truths, clothed in a style that tasks 
our language, and ennobling conceptions that task the reader’s imag- 
ination.—DR. ΉΕΡΟΝ, in the Quarterly Review. 


Principles of a System of Philosophy. 


An Essay toward solving some of the more difficult Ques- 
tions in Metaphysics and Religion. By A. BIERBOWER, 
A.M. 16mo., pp. 240. Price, $1 25. 


This is a small but very remarkable book. It is seldom that we find 
so much compactly put up in such a readable form. The author grap- 
ples with the stupendous problems of sin, evil, foreknowledge, man’s 
responsibility, God’s authorship, providence, prayer, and it seems to 
us that he should have touched prophecy. The foundation principle 
of the book is necessary laws, ἃ force that cannot be annihilated, and 
contrary to which nothing can be created. For example, God himself 
could not make a triangle with but two sides, nor can he so make a 
triangle but that the three angles would be equal to two right angles. 
He cannot make 2x2—5. He cannot make a free moral agent without 
the possibility of his sinning. Certain evils are necessarily incidental 
to doing the best things, or to doing any one of several things that 
might be best. God, therefore, not only does not do every thing, but 
cannot do every thing, and so neither does he know every thing. We 
are exceedingly thankful to our Editor and Agents at New York for a 
work of this kind. It must stir up thought, and give clearer views of 
God’s glorious economy. If it be not entirely satisfactory, it will con- 
tribute something toward solving the most difficult problems of the 
ages. We advise our ministers generally to purchase this work, and 
read it with care from end to end.—Northwestern Advocate. 


NEW) ΒΟΘ 9 
PUBLISHED BY CARLTON ἃ LANAHAN, 


$05 BROADWAY, NEW VORK 


Greek Philosophy in its Relations to Christianity. 


By B. F. Cocxsrr, D.D., Professor of Moral Philosophy in 
the University of Michigan. 12mo., pp. 531.° Price, $2 75. 


This work comprises a profound discussion of the leading philosoph- 
ical and religious problems of the day, with special reference to the 
theories of Comte, Sir William Hamilton, Herbert Spencer, and other 
great thinkers of a recent period, together with a copious exposition of 
the ancient Greek systems, and the social condition of Athens. It is a 
work of rare erudition. The writer has mastered his subject and the 
learning which pertains to it. He is familiar with the prominent sys- 
tems, and well understands their scope and bearings. “He has a re- 
markable talent for concise. methodical, and exact statements on 
abstruse subjects. At the same time his learning does not oppress 
him—does not interfere with his own mental action. He is a firm and 
independent thinker. His werk forms a valuable guide to the history 
of ancient and modern speculation, while it is full of important original 
suggestions. Its publication really forms an epoch in the history of 
American philosophical literature, and elevates its author to a high 
rank among the philosophical writers of the age. Every philosophical 
student in the country will find it a treasure.--Harper’s Magazine. 


Rome and Italy at the Opening of the Gicumentcal 


Council. 


Depicted in Twelve Letters written from Rome to a Gen- 
tleman in America. By EpMonp Dr PressEns&, D.D., 
Pastor of the Evangelical Church in Paris, Author of 
“Early Years of the Christian Church,” and “ Life and 
Times of Jesus Christ.” Translated by Rev. GEORGE 
Prentice, A.M. 12mo. Toned paper. Price, $1 50. 


Of Pressensé the North British Review says, “ His sentences are like 
cut erystal.’’....In the present work he gives free range to his powers. 
He expatiates over the scenes of natural beauty which wonderful Italy 
spreads before his eye. He lingers in delighted yet critical enthusiasm 
among her multitudinous works of art. He walks the Roman streets, 
and paints the monuments of the past and movements of the living 
present. He descends into those wonders of subterranean Rome, the 
Catacombs, where lie the nations of the dead in one vast monumental 
city, cut by nine hundred miles of streets, and where the epitaphs of a 
whole glorious army of martyrs reveal to us the wonders and glories 
of the early faith. In the great pivotal questions of the age he is at 
home. He understands their genesis from the history of Europe. His 
penetrative eye reads Papal Rome through and through. His prescient 
eye sees hope only in the far future ; a period of blessed sunshine after 
Europe has tied the awful experiment of utter godlessness.— Methodist 
Quarterly Review. ; 


by Mee yale” ty hey ΜΑΣ δα ἂν 
ἀλλὰ ae ee aaa 


Date Due 


ae 
\ 


6 
=. 
< 


JE12 at ae 


NANI AL 


| 


i 


i 


| 


| 


1 1012 00076 


t 
δε }}} 


= — 

= Ὡ»» ΞΞΞΞΞ:Ξ:Ξ:Ξ:-- - 
» [as . 
= ‘1S 

= ——=—_= = 
- = --.-------------τ--- = 
: ———= - : 
Σ eo 2 

: 0 ——— 

=. Β 

= ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 

pa . ΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ 

= a ο πυυσς 

——— 


| 


| 


lic era 


| 


| 


FapeGRigseeees 


i 


| 


The Aposto 


BW960 


beal 


55285300805 


ἘΠ 


ΠΗΠΉΠΗ 


" 


ΠΠΤΗῚ 


αι εστηνννσοσνσυννντσυσυσν Ow. has 
καρ enaennasarat apveVERe παν. οασωτ. 


| ere RN να ρα TECEIENT ve 9 WUT 
ala ene ae 
Cneeremesenenereny Das amt σον ὦ ererre 
citar nterrreeeeTiiae scent or! SEITE 


| gest στα cemresrreremnre 
παρ eetirs seer starNT 


Fear κραΣ TGA καθ RNUENT URLS aT TEES 
(Reena πϑυσεσεσωσεατακφανενα, | oT He φασι 
A ngarneanc st 5 ἀρεξισαναξανονν. | 


